Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

LIVING ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)

Address for:
Return of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1954. (In continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 271 of Session 1953–54).—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teacher Training (Three-Year Course)

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Education whether he will now make a statement on the timing of the introduction of a three-year course for students in training colleges for teachers in view of the strong support for such a course existing among educationists, and in view of the desirability that children should not be deprived of the advantage of being taught by teachers of improved quality.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): No, Sir. But I have asked the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers to advise me on a number of factors which will have to be considered before I reach any decision on this matter.

Mr. Moss: Is the Minister aware that Sir Frederick Mander has suggested that the introduction of the three-year course should be synchronised with the reduction in the size of classes, and that Dr. Jeffery thinks that the three-year course should be a reality in progress of establishment by 1960? Should not the right hon. Gentleman have a considered plan?

Sir D. Eccles: There are many eminent gentlemen who believe that a three-year course would be a good thing, and naturally one agrees with them; but there

are also a number of practical considerations, and on those I am of the opinion that the best thing I can do is to get the advice of my Council. When I have got that, I will see what we can do.

Youth Service (Policy Review)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the difficulty of maintaining the supply of full-trained youth leaders; and if he will state his policy on the future pattern of the Youth Service.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend intends to review policy in consultation with the various bodies that are concerned.

Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend expect that there will be an improvement in the supply of leaders for the Youth Service? Is he aware that, whereas it costs £6 a week to keep a boy in an approved school, only £3 a year is being spent by local authorities to help the Youth Service? Is it not true that a stitch in time saves nine?

Mr. Vosper: That will be one of the considerations to which my right hon. Friend will give attention. I do not think I can be expected to go further than my original answer at this stage.

Dr. King: Will the hon. Gentleman treat this as a matter of some urgency? Is he aware that his own Ministry is finding it difficult to get candidates for the youth leader courses which are already being provided by the Ministry, and that the real difficulty is the unattractiveness of the salary scales for the Youth Service?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of that, but the hon. Member may agree that there are considerable developments in the field of education at the moment. It is not possible to commence everything at once.

Youth Officers and Leaders (Salaries)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education what salaries are paid by local education authorities to Youth Service officers and full-time youth leaders; and how many local authorities have not adopted the Soulbury Report for Youth Service officers.

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has no precise details of salaries paid by local authorities to youth officers and leaders, but he understands that some authorities use the Burnham scale for teachers, some the various scales for different local government officers, and some ad hoc scales.

Mr. Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend think that it is time that all local authorities now paid youth leaders on a properly established scale?

Mr. Vosper: I think my answer to my hon. Friend's first Question covers his supplementary question to this one.

"Enterprise Unlimited"

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of of Education what progress has been made in securing tough girls over 16 years of age for "Enterprise Unlimited" to help in emergencies; when and where recruiting campaigns are to be held; how it is proposed to toughen members for their arduous tasks; what type of uniform will be worn; or what will be the distinguishing marks of the members.

Sir D. Eccles: I do not interfere with the detailed administration of the Girls' Training Corps, but I understand that this scheme, which is confined to Kent, is going well, and that the hon. Member has been in touch with the girls.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the Minister for what he said, though I am a bit doubtful about his last few words, may I ask whether he will, as one who has some responsibility in making contributions towards this scheme, at least ensure that the girls are not made too tough, because men do not like them that way? On the other hand, will he agree with me that this is a wonderful idea and will he see that it does not fail because of lack of finance?

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt an expert on what is attractive. I understand that these girls are doing a very good job, learning how to deal with all kinds of emergencies such as floods and that kind of thing in which there is often great need for people who have had a little training. I hope that the scheme will be a success.

Provincial School Children, Accommodation (London)

Mr. L. M. Lever: asked the Minister of Education if the Government will establish a hostel in London to receive all the year round parties of school children from the provinces.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir; there are many more important things to be done in education.

Mr. Lever: Is the Minister aware that every year thousands of boys and girls from Manchester schools and from schools from other parts of the country visit the Metropolis, and that at the end of the day they are very tired after seeing what is to be seen in the capital? Will he, therefore, give this suggestion further consideration? Does he also realise that the boys and girls coming from the schools are not so tough that they can stand up to a day of rushing round the city, and will he look at the matter again?

Sir D. Eccles: It is an attractive idea and I have been thinking about it, but it may well be that the way to deal with it would be by private effort. The Minister has so much work connected with schools themselves that I do not think we could start building hostels.

Mr. Lever: But will the Minister give further consideration to it?

Sir D. Eccles: indicated assent.

Rural Reorganisation Schemes

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education the value of the projects for rural reorganisation of schools submitted to him by local education authorities for 1956–57; and the value of those schemes he has not approved for that year.

Sir D. Eccles: Projects for rural reorganisation proposed by authorities for the 1956–57 programme totalled about £11½million. Within the school building programme which I have already announced, I expect to be able to approve about half this work for starting in that year.

Mr. Thomas: Am I to understand that the local authorities in the rural areas think they can complete the programme which they have submitted to him but that he thinks otherwise, or what reason is there for the cut in the estimate?

Sir D. Eccles: The reason is that the programme is larger than we originally thought it would be, as I explained to the House last week. By this instalment we shall, in fact, start half of the programme by 1957, so that the total programme will be started, one hopes, well within the next five years.

Dr. King: Can the Minister assure us that he is not going to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer interfere with his five-year programme for completing the organisation of rural all-age schools?

Sir D. Eccles: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far from interfering, has welcomed this programme and has accepted the fact that it is considerably larger than when I first put it to him.

Minor Projects

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education how many minor projects were started in 1954–55; and how many have been approved for 1955–56.

Sir D. Eccles: The value of minor projects on all types of educational building started during the financial year 1954–55 was £7,334,000. I cannot forecast the corresponding figure for this year because I do not now impose a limit on the total amount of this type of work which local education authorities may undertake.

Mr. Thomas: Do I understand that the local authorities are free to go ahead with all minor projects?

Sir D. Eccles: They are free to go ahead with any minor project up to £10,000 per job.

All-Age Schools (Urban Areas)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education how many all-age schools there are in urban areas; and his plans for reorganising all-age schools in towns within the next five years.

Sir D. Eccles: In January, 1954, there were 1,629 all-age schools and departments in urban areas. In answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave him on 3rd February last.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that it is because that answer was not satisfactory that I put this Question

down? Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at this problem with a view to speeding up the reorganisation in the industrial areas for these kiddies, who have demands upon his attention equal to those in the rural areas?

Sir D. Eccles: We shall do that just as soon as the resources are available.

School Building Programme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education what changes will be made in the school building programme as a result of the decision on restriction on credit expenditure made by the Government this week.

Sir D. Eccles: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in Tuesday's debate on the economic situation, the programme remains as announced.

Mr. Swingler: We understand that nothing that has at present been approved will be interfered with, but can the Minister give us an assurance that there will be no interference with the momentum of the school building programme? Is he aware of the tremendous harm done at the end of 1951 by the break in the build-up of the school programme; and, for the purposes of long-term planning by the local education authorities, can he give an assurance that there will be no interference with the future of the programme?

Sir D. Eccles: The programme which I have announced is for 1956–57. Local authorities are now in possession of all the information about their forward planning that they normally expect to have. Next year we will consider the following year's programme and we hope it will be no smaller.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister give an assurance that the next year's programme will be no less than the programme which he has approved for 1956–57?

Sir D. Eccles: No Government has ever given such an assurance. In one year we give the local authorities the approved programme for the succeeding year. The local authorities know up to April, 1957, what they can do. This time next year we shall do the same thing again.

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Education the estimated expenditure on the school building programme in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Sir D. Eccles: The West Riding local education authority's school building programme for major projects to be started in 1956–57 will cost about £1½ million.

Sir L. Ropner: Could my right hon. Friend tell us how that figure compares with previous years?

Sir D. Eccles: The previous year for which I have the figure here is 1954–55, and it is £1,200,000. I regret that I have not got the other figures.

Science and Technology (University Students)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to publicise the need for boys and girls at grammar schools and independent public schools to read science or technology when they go up to the universities.

Sir D. Eccles: My Parliamentary Secretary and I try to influence opinion inside and outside the House, and hon. Members can greatly assist our efforts. We shall be successful if we take every opportunity to appeal directly and indirectly to those concerned.

Mr. Albu: Can the Minister say whether or not he considers that his advice to the boys of University College School, Hampstead, the other day, that they ought not to take up science because it is popular, is likely to have the effect he wants?

Sir D. Eccles: I think the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed about what I said at the prize giving at that excellent school. I told them we wanted both sides and if they went in for science they must realise that it was necessary to study some of the humanities as well.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that that is what he intended to say at University College School, but will he consider the newspaper reports of his speech, and will he bear in mind that this audience, of whom I was one, took away a very different impression?

Sir D. Eccles: I must thank the hon. Gentleman for coming to listen to me. I will certainly consider the newspaper reports, which I have not yet seen.

Mr. M. Stewart: Did the right hon. Gentleman award my hon. Friend a prize on that occasion?

Sir D. Eccles: I never saw him.

Teachers' Special Leave (Salary Deductions)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that the West Riding education authority deducts the salary of its teachers for the days when they are absent on leave for the purpose of taking an examination for a degree, including the Saturday and Sunday if these intervene; how far this practice is general; and if it has the approval of his Department.

Sir D. Eccles: The granting of special leave to teachers rests with their employers. I do not know whether local authorities generally, or the West Riding in particular, stop pay on these occasions or not.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question, which is, whether this practice has the approval of his Department, in view of the fact that local education authorities should do everything to help their teachers to be efficient and should not penalise them?

Sir D. Eccles: I think one has to leave these matters to the employers. There are many reasons why a teacher might want to go away for two or three days, and I think it is part of the relationship between the local authority and the teacher which of those reasons is recognised as not involving a cut in pay.

Mr. Hall: But why include Saturday and Sunday which in any case are days when a man is not teaching?

Sir D. Eccles: It seems sensible to me not so to do so, but I cannot issue directives to the employers.

Mr. J. Edwards: While the right hon. Gentleman cannot issue directives and while it must be left to the local authority, could he advise local authorities in this sense? That would help.

Sir D. Eccles: It is probable that they will read this Question and Answer; and anyhow there has been a change in the council of the West Riding, so perhaps it will be more sympathetic.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are too many circulars going out to local authorities, and particularly directives; and will he bear in mind that if the education service is to be kept a healthy part of local government, there must be an accent on the idea that the local authority is an authority and is not a junior partner of Whitehall?

Sir D. Eccles: I do have that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Migration Policy

Mr. Renton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is aware that only about 50 per cent. of the immigrants to countries of the Commonwealth since 1945 have been citizens of other countries of the Commonwealth; and what steps are being taken to ensure that as many as possible of such immigrants are from countries of the Commonwealth.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): My hon. Friend's figures are, I believe, broadly accurate. The migration policies of other Commonwealth countries are for their Governments to decide, but, as was stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30th June, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom continue to take a close interest in all migration matters and will always be ready to consider with Commonwealth Governments any particular proposals which seem mutually desirable.

Mr. Renton: Can my hon. Friend give some assurance that Her Majesty's Government will use some of their own initiative in this matter?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir. I think that that would interfere with what, by common consent, is the responsibility of independent Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am not suggesting any kind of interference? All I am suggesting is that there should be tentative suggestions of a harmless character. Will he not lead his mind on that path?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am sure that all the Commonwealth Governments concerned are aware that on frequent occasions it has been stated from this Box that Her Majesty's Government will always be ready to consider any particular proposals of Commonwealth Governments.

European Cemeteries, India and Pakistan

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what arrangements have been made with the Governments of India and Pakistan for the upkeep of British graves in those countries which are not cared for by the Imperial War Graves Commission.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The arrangements for the care of European cemeteries in India and Pakistan formerly maintained by the Government of India were described in detail in reply to a Question by Mr. Symonds, the then Member for Cambridge, on 15th March, 1949, but were later amended in one respect in reply to a Question by the Earl Winterton, the then Member for Horsham, on 12th April, 1951. Otherwise the original arrangements continue in force and I have nothing to add to these replies, of which I am sending copies to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, and for the efforts which have been made by his Department, with the generous co-operation of the two other Commonwealth Governments, may I express the hope that all concerned will keep a keen interest in this matter so that as many graves as possible can be kept in decency and honour?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am sure that all concerned will do their best to co-operate, but as my hon. Friend will see from the replies I have sent to him, this is a fairly large question. There were more than 1,350 cemeteries scattered over the Indian sub-continent.

Offences, Northern Ireland (Extradition Treaty)

Mr. Hyde: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further progress has been made towards the conclusion of an extradition treaty between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Eire so as to cover offences committed in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I regret that I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) on 16th June.

Mr. Hyde: Is my hon. Friend aware that the persistent refusal of the Government of Eire to negotiate an agreement on these lines is creating an unfortunate impression in Northern Ireland? Will he and his noble Friend do their best to reach an understanding on this matter, in the interests both of common justice and good neighbourly relations between both parts of Ireland?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes, I am sure that the authorities of the Irish Republic are in no doubt that we want to see an improvement in the present position.

Irish Republican Army

Mr. Hyde: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in view of the open recruiting by the Irish Republican Army in Eire for hostile operations against Northern Ireland, he will make a protest and ask the Government of Eire to take more effective steps to suppress this illegal organisation.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to Sir D. Savory, the then hon. Member for Antrim, South, on 11th November, 1954.

Mr. Hyde: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a very serious matter, particularly for the people of Northern Ireland, who are becoming increasingly alarmed by reason of Press reports on the activities of the I.R.A.?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We are well aware of the strong feeling in Northern Ireland about this matter. I would refer my hon. Friend to the last paragraph of the reply which I gave on 11th November, when

I pointed out that in the debate in the Dail which followed the attack at Omagh both the Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic and the Leader of the Opposition condemned this use of violence.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Publications (Free Copies)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider amending the law under which publishers are required to supply free copies of all their publications to certain institutions.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The hon. Member will be aware of the recommendations of the Copyright Committee on this subject, but I can give no promise of early amending legislation to deal with this part of its Report.

Mr. Jenkins: Am I right in thinking that copies have to go to the British Museum and to the Library of Trinity College, Dublin? Is not that rather a curious anomaly? Could not something be said for sending copies to a library in Edinburgh or to the Library of the University of Wales?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think there is something to be said for that, but I understand that it is a controversial issue, which is dealt with at some length in the Copyright Report.

Goatskins

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade why it is that of imported raw hides and skins only goatskins bear an import duty; and what domestic production of goatskins there is.

Mr. P. Thomeycroft: The duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem on goatskins is imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Agreements with India and South Africa by which the United Kingdom undertook to maintain the existing margin of preference of 10 per cent. ad valorem on goatskins imported from those countries. There are no official statistics of domestic production of goatskins, but I am informed that it is very small.

Full Chrome Upper Leather and Glace Kid

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the rate of duty on foreign full chrome upper leathers and glace kid, respectively.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The duty on full chrome upper leather is 20 per cent. or in some cases 15 per cent. ad valorem and the duty on glace kid is 10 per cent. ad valorem.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not the Answer reveal a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and that the home glace kid manufacturer has to bear unnecessary import duty on his imported raw skins and then has less protection than similar leather manufactures against goods from abroad? Could my right hon. Friend do something to remedy that situation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall be happy to look at representations made to me. As I said in reply to the earlier Question, the former duty is really part of the preferential arrangements, for which of course we get reciprocal benefits.

Spring-clip Knives (Import)

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to stop the import of knives and similar instruments which have devices such as spring clips attached to them where such devices can serve no purpose other than making the instrument speedily usable as a weapon.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration a statement that was made a few days ago by the learned Recorder of Leicester, when he said:
I am just not going to have Leicester turned into a City of young gangsters. I shall have no mercy on young men who get hold of coshes, guns, axes or knives.
In view of the fact that knives with these devices can be used for no other purpose than a vicious lethal one, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the position, see some of them, and then make up his mind whether he will allow them to come into the country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As the Home Secretary explained at some length to the hon. Member, it would be quite impracticable

to control the sale of these things in this country. In those circumstances, to apply an import control would be quite out of the question.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman see these spring clips himself? If he decides that they have no other purpose at all—[Interruption.] This is a very serious matter. If he comes to the conclusion that they can serve no other purpose than making the knife readily usable for causing bodily harm, will he then decide whether he will allow them to come in or not?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Those were the very questions which the hon. Member addressed to the Home Secretary.

Czechoslovakia

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the improvement in international relations, he will take steps to reopen trade negotiations with Czechoslovakia with a view to the conclusion of a trade agreement.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member on 21st July.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the welcome improvement in the international atmosphere as a result of the Geneva Conference, would not this be a suitable situation in which the President of the Board of Trade could initiate or reopen trade negotiations which have broken down in the last few months with a number of countries in Eastern Europe, particularly Czechoslovakia, and see whether now, as a result of the improved position, we can overcome these disputes about debts?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that the suspension is due to debt talks and not to trade talks. Debt talks, of course, are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Industries (Subsidies)

Mr. Crouch: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and type of industries in this country subsidised by the Government.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Apart from various forms of assistance in connection


with food and agriculture, very small payments in the nature of subsidy are made by the Government to two specialised industries—watchmaking and the motor car industry in respect of certain racing cars. In the latter case the payments represent the reimbursement of Purchase Tax paid.

Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend keep an eye on this position to see if, when the opportunity arises, he can reduce subsidies, because that would help the Chancellor of the Exchequer in keep-down taxation?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary to subsidise racing cars? Could not the motor industry, which is so prosperous, do that itself?

Mr. Thorneycroft: In this case it is scarcely a subsidy; it is more of a repayment of Purchase Tax to encourage the development of racing.

Textile Exports (Consultations)

Mr. Green: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to encourage and assist the export of high quality textiles.

Mr. Fort: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his meeting with representatives of the Cotton Board on 27th July to discuss the promotion of British textiles.

Mr. Leavey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is contemplating to counter the waning confidence in the Lancashire textile industry.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The usual services of the Board of Trade are, of course, available to help exporters of all textiles. At my request, the Cotton Board Standing Joint Conference on Overseas Trade Policy came to see me yesterday, when a useful discussion took place over a wide range of matters affecting the export problems of the industry and the tasks confronting Government and industry alike in dealing with them. In my view, the existence of machinery of a more permanent character to undertake regular consultation on export questions would serve a useful purpose. I therefore proposed and it was agreed that such

meetings should be held at regular intervals and arrangements are being made accordingly.

Mr. Green: While thanking my right hon. Friend for, and readily accepting, his real and obvious interest in the promotion of exports of high-quality textiles, may I ask him to bear in mind that a healthy export trade springs from a healthy home trade and that Purchase Tax is a cramping factor in the home market for high-quality textiles?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear that in mind. Of course, the removal of Purchase Tax from certain classes of textiles has had healthy results.

Mr. Fort: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the one class of textiles which is completely free of Purchase Tax, namely, industrial cloths, has both a flourishing home trade and, therefore, a flourishing export trade, in contrast to the other parts of the industry which are burdened with Purchase Tax?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes. Of course, the removal of Purchase Tax from the non-wool household textiles and furnishing fabrics had also helped in this regard.

Mr. H. Wilson: Has the President of the Board of Trade seen the figures of yarn production, showing that in the second quarter there has been a decline of over 13 per cent. compared with the same period of last year, and a rapid worsening even compared with the first quarter? In view of these very serious figures, when are we to have any glimmerings at all of any Government policy to deal with the situation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Naturally, of course, I study, as the right hon. Gentleman does, the figures of production, but, as he is aware, this is a complex picture on which exports, imports and, not least, the situation of the American disposals, all have a bearing. It is not possible to give comprehensive answers to questions on these matters.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does it follow from what the right hon. Gentleman says that, because the matter is so complex, the Government are not going to find any policy at any time for the wool and cotton textile industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have announced our policy on textiles in a number of


debates, and recently, on 3rd May, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself made a comprehensive statement on many of these issues.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that all these comprehensive statements that members of the Government have made from time to time during the past few months have left the industry completely unsatisfied? When I say "the industry," I mean all sides of it. Do the Government not realise that the complexity of the problem, to which the right hon. Gentleman has himself referred, itself requires that the Government should concentrate now on making up their minds on what is their long-term constructive policy for the textile industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly agree with the hon. Member that decisions of policy in many of these matters are industrial decisions and for the industry itself within the general framework of commercial policy laid down by the Government.

United States Cotton (Export Policy)

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the damaging effect caused to the cotton textile industry in this country by the prolonged delay on the part of the United States Government in announcing their future price support policy for United States cotton; and whether he will again impress upon the United States Government the need for an early statement.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. The Government have taken, and will continue to take, every opportunity to impress on the United States authorities not only the urgent need for an announcement of their cotton export policy for the coming season, but also that they should take no action which might endanger the world trade in raw cotton.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that the uncertainty now being created in the cotton textile industry because of this delay on the part of the American Government in making known their intentions

on price support policy, is virtually bringing business in the cotton textile industry to a standstill?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think I would certainly agree that at this moment the uncertainty with regard to United States policy about disposals is the most urgent problem confronting the cotton textile industry, not only of this country, but of many other countries.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since this matter has been raised from this side of the House for several months as being a very urgent question, and since the right hon. Gentleman says that every possible step has been taken, will he say why he rejected the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) that he should go to Washington and press this matter personally on United States Ministers? Will he also tell the House whether, at the recent high-level meeting at Geneva, the Prime Minister pressed this question upon the President of the United States?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is for me to judge whether it is better to make a personal visit or whether the matter should be pressed by Her Majesty's Ambassador, which is the appropriate method of doing these things, with the United States Government. I can give the assurance that every appropriate method has been adopted of bringing home to the United States Government the need, not only for an urgent decision, but also for a decision upon lines which will not disrupt the trade in raw cotton in world markets.

Cotton Cloths

Mr. Fort: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the average weekly production of cotton cloths in the United Kingdom primarily used for industrial purposes, and for apparel, respectively, in January and June, 1955;
(2) the average weekly retained imports of cotton cloths suitable for apparel in January and June, 1955.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I regret that these figures are not available.

Mr. Fort: In view of the importance of the manner in which imports are affecting production in this country of apparel cloths, can my right hon. Friend undertake to collect the statistics so that he himself, as well as the rest of us, can


be better informed as to how these imports affect the production of apparel cloths in England?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly try to get any information which would be of value, but there are real difficulties in distinguishing the different types of cloth. If my hon. Friend would have a word with me, I might explain some of them to him afterwards.

Mr. S. Silverman: What is the good of the right hon. Gentleman's equipping himself with all this information if his basic outlook on the problem is that it is one for the industry itself and that the Government disclaim all responsibility in the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: One of the reasons for getting this information is to ensure that the Government's broad commercial policy is on lines favourable to the industry.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: asked the President of the Board of Trade by what amount United Kingdom exports of cotton cloth have decreased and imports of foreign cotton cloth have increased during the first six months of this year.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Generally, both imports and exports have decreased during the first six months of 1955. I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that these imports of foreign cloth are very heavy indeed and are seriously aggravating an already very difficult position in the cotton textile industry, with the result that short-time working and unemployment are now beginning to rise more steeply?

Mr. Thorneyeroft: The situation in Lancashire is more complex than can be attributed solely to imports of foreign grey cloth.

Mrs. Castle: Would the President of the Board of Trade not agree that the general picture in the cotton industry is now one of steady shrinkage and decline, with the result that young workers are either leaving the industry or are not entering it from school, and that unless the Government announce a plan showing what they think the size and rôle of the cotton industry should be in the

economy, there will be simply an unregulated decline?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think any help would be given by a statement from any Government as to what they thought the size of the cotton textile industry ought to be.

Following are the figures:


IMPORTS AND UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS OF WOVEN COTTON FABRICS OF STANDARD TYPE


Thousand sq. yds.


1955

Imports
United Kingdom Exports



Total
of which grey unbleached
Total*


January
…
36,881
33,569
59,631


February
…
31,165
28,052
51,783


March
…
31,600
28,686
53,825


April
…
24,322
22,124
45,842


May
…
29,909
27,795
45,426


June
…
17,437
15,803
24,838


*Excluding cotton fents, exports of which were valued at -£371,604 in the period Jan.-June, 1955.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Pensions (Retired Teachers)

Mr. Moss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many retired teachers are living on pensions that are inadequate; and what action he proposes to take to help them.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The position of retired teachers is being kept under review, along with that of other former public servants.

Mr. Moss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position of some retired teachers has been described as a scandalous anomaly in what is alleged to be a Welfare State? Will he not commit himself to some expression of sympathy towards these retired members of a noble profession?

Mr. Brooke: The Government have great sympathy with all those who have to live on pensions which are not now worth as much as when the pension was granted. That was why the Government brought in a new Pensions (Increase) Act


in 1952. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House a fortnight ago that he was keeping the whole matter under review.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the entire teaching profession is disturbed by the condition of the "Old Guard," that repeated representations have been made to the Treasury about these old folk, and that unless action is taken the right hon. Gentleman will meet with growing resentment from those still actively engaged in the profession?

Mr. Brooke: I have already expressed my sympathy with the pensioners, not only of the teaching profession, but of other occupations.

Mr. Janner: They do not want sympathy.

Purchase Tax (Hotel Equipment)

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that travel organisations, including air and shipping companies and agents, are concerned that overseas visitors to Britain are being discouraged by the lack of suitable hotels; and whether as an encouragement to more and better hotels he will consider waiving the Purchase Tax on equipment which constitutes a considerable burden.

Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend would not feel justified in relieving hotels of this tax, in isolation from other users of taxable goods.

Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor consider, with other members of the Government, what is to be done about this very difficult position? For instance, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Royal Automobile Club was asked what country hotels were available within thirty or forty miles of Leicester, and not too far from the London road, the answer from the Club was that it was regretted that it had no details of country hotels in the required area? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that that situation prevails in other parts of the country? Will he try to meet the situation, which is extremely important to the tourist trade?

Mr. Brooke: I recognise the difficulties of those who are trying to run

hotels in these days, but there is no possible solution along the lines of a special exemption from Purchase Tax.

Diesel Oil (Taxation)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had since his last Budget regarding a reduction in the tax on diesel fuel oil used in public service vehicles; and what reply he has made.

Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend has received representations from the road passenger transport organisations and from a few other bodies and individuals. They have been told that he has taken note of their views.

Mr. Thomson: In view of the very widespread concern amongst the local authorities at the weight of this tax, would the Chancellor look into this matter and, since there is not to be an autumn Budget, consider taking special steps about it?

Mr. Brooke: I quite agree with the hon. Member that this is an important issue, but of course it is also a very large one financially, because this tax is very closely linked with the tax on light oils, that is to say, petrol.

Industrial Derating

Mr. Sparks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) what estimate he has formed of the effect upon Treasury revenue and expenditure of the repeal of industrial derating;
(2) the loss to the rate revenue of local authorities from the derating of industrial hereditaments in the nearest convenient year.

Mr. H. Brooke: At 1st April, 1954, the aggregate rateable value of the property in Great Britain which had the benefit of industrial derating was about £15 millions. The repeal of industrial derating would have such widespread ramifications on Exchequer revenue and expenditure, that I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member any firm estimate.

Mr. Sparks: In view of the publications now issuing from the Conservative Party Central Office, may I ask whether it is the policy of the Government to repeal industrial derating at an early date?

Mr. Brooke: The Minister of Housing and Local Government has said that a review is being undertaken of all aspects of local government, and that will include the question of the derating of industry.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman make this clear? Are the Government in favour of abolishing the derating of industry?

Mr. Brooke: The Government, very wisely, do not make up their mind until they have carried out a review.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the internal purchasing value of the £ sterling at the latest convenient date when compared with 20s. in October, 1951; and how it compares with 1st January, 1955.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 26th July. The corresponding figure for January, 1955, was 18s. 6d.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the need at least to stabilise the internal value of the £ for the sake of industrial peace in this country? Since it seems that it is going to take another nose dive, will he state what action, is being taken to avoid a very grave situation?

Sir E. Boyle: I also realise that whereas the purchasing power of the £ has fallen by 2s. under the present Government, it fell by 4. 7d. in the last three years of the Government formed by hon. and right hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Dodds: That is not an answer to my question.

Local Authority Loans

Mr. Sparks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total interest payment which will be due on loans by local authorities from the Public Works Loan Board during 1951; the total sum advanced; and if he will give an estimate of the interest repayment on loans made during the current year on the assumption that the sums to be borrowed will be the same as in 1951.

Mr. H. Brooke: In the calendar year 1951, £390 million was advanced to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board. The total amount of interest payable in respect of these loans is approximately £333 million. Assuming that the Board will advance in 1955 the same amount as in 1951, that there will be no further change in interest rates during the remainder of the current year, and allowing for the shorter average life of loans now being made, the total amount of interest payable on these advances would be approximately £349 million.

Mr. Sparks: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the increase in the interest rate on loans from the Public Works Loan Board has created a very heavy additional burden upon the local rates, and will he give an assurance that this very high rate of interest will be reviewed by the Government at an early date, with a view to its reduction?

Mr. Brooke: The necessity for the increase in the rate is, as the hon. Member knows, the change in the market rates. Local authorities will be wise if they pay attention to what the Chancellor said, and consider very carefully whether this is the right time to seek to go forward with non-essential capital projects.

Mr. Jay: Is it, then, the policy of the Government that the local authorities should reduce their housing programmes —[An HON. MEMBER: "And school building."]—because this rate has gone up?

Mr. Brooke: The Chancellor made a statement about the Government's housing policy on Tuesday.

Industrial Investment (United States Capital)

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give an estimate of the amount of United States capital invested in industry in British Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories; and if he will estimate, in particular, the capital invested in the chemical industry;
(2) if he will give an estimate of the amount of United States capital invested in industry in this country; and whether he will estimate, in particular, the capital invested in the chemical industry.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that in neither case is this information available.

Mr. Edwards: Is not that a remarkable reply to a legitimate Question? Surely we are concerned about the silent dollar invasion through investment in overseas territories?

Sir E. Boyle: This is a very complicated question because the United States investment may be direct investment or portfolio investment. I would gladly write to the hon. Member to explain this matter further. American sources of information estimate that in 1953 the total value of United States direct investment in the United Kingdom was about £400 million.

An Hon. Member: Why did not the hon. Gentleman say that before?

Mr. Gower: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is really most desirable that trade and investment should move freely between the countries of the world?

Sir E. Boyle: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reason I did not give that answer at once was that the information which I have just given came from American sources. It was not information collected in Great Britain.

Mr. Edwards: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is very deplorable that, because of large dollar investments here, economic decisions affecting the British economy should be made in America instead of in London?

Housing Association, Dundee (Rents)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken by the Registrar of Friendly Societies in relation to the breach of its own rules by the Northern Housing Association in raising the rents of its properties without having first obtained the approval of the Department of Health for Scotland.

Mr. H. Brooke: None, Sir. The Registrar has no power to take action unless a breach by a society of its rules involves the commission of an offence under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts or creates a situation whereby the conditions of registration are no longer fulfilled.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this society has quite flagrantly broken its own rules by flouting the Secretary of State's powers in

relation to it; and will he not at least draw the attention of the Registrar of Friendly Societies to the debate on the matter in the House the other night, and to the very full answer then given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Brooke: I can assure the hon. Member that I need not draw the Registrar's attention to that debate because he and I have read the report of it together. The facts are exactly as stated in the answer to the hon. Member's Question.

Motor Cars (Initial Allowance)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the cars sold in the home market in the most recent year attracted the Income Tax initial allowance; and whether he will now withdraw the initial allowance from passenger cars.

Mr. H. Brooke: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. The proposal in the second part of the Question would require legislation, and the appropriate occasion for considering it would be the Finance Bill.

Mr. Jay: Whatever this percentage, which many people believe to be more than 50, is it not extraordinary that at a time when the Chancellor wants to divert goods from the home market the Treasury, in effect, should be subsidising the purchase of cars in this way?

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting legislation. I am sure that he recognises that we could not bring in a Finance Bill even if we wanted to at this particular date. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am trying to help him in his present difficulties? If he chooses to legislate on this subject he will have the support of many of us on this side of the House.

Mr. Brooke: I always imagine the right hon. Gentleman as constantly wishing to be helpful.

Mr. Albu: Would not the Minister consider the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) that when cars are used


for business purposes they should have the name of the company painted on them, as in the case of commercial vehicles?

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN (CONFERENCE)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Prime Minister when the talks on Cyprus will commence; what alteration has been made to the date in recent weeks; and whether he will give an assurance that they will not commence until the Colonial Secretary, who has recently visited Cyprus, has returned to this country from the Far East.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): The Greek and Turkish Governments have accepted the invitation of Her Majesty's Government to send representatives to London for a conference beginning on 29th August on political and defence questions which affect the Eastern Mediterranean, including Cyprus. There has been no alteration in this date.
With regard to the last part of the Question, the Colonial Secretary will return from the Far East very shortly after the opening of the conference and will then take part in its proceedings.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Greek Government have given as the reason for bringing the case of Cyprus to the United Nations that there was a change of date, and if there has been no change of date for the London conference, does he realise that the many friends of Greece on this side of the House will feel very disappointed that, after what we consider our Prime Minister's very generous gesture in calling together this conference, the Greeks should now seem to be giving way to blackmail by taking the case to Lake Success and at the same time seeming to blackmail us?

The Prime Minister: I do not know that I should help matters very much by commenting further, though I understand my hon. Friend's feelings. I think that as everybody is coming on 29th August, and as they have all agreed on the conditions under which they are coming, we should perhaps leave it at that and hope for the best.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LANDS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what preliminary steps he proposes to take to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee on Crown Lands.

The Prime Minister: A Permanent Commissioner has just been appointed. It is hoped that in due course this officer, as Civil Service head of the Department, will, in accordance with the Committee's recommendations, become Deputy-Chairman of the proposed Board of Trustees. The Committee on Crown Lands also recommended the choice of a chairman-designate. The Government propose to give effect to this recommendation.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that the Committee was anxious that its recommendations should be carried into effect as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that will be done. As I say, we are going to give effect to its recommendations, probably during the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE)

Mrs. White: asked the Prime Minister to state the representatives of United Kingdom political parties who will attend the conference on Malta next September.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Prime Minister when the Malta Conference will commence; who will be the members from this country; and whether he will give an assurance that nothing will be definitely decided until Parliament has reassembled.

The Prime Minister: I will, with permission, answer these Questions together at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Grain-drying Plant (Use)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the capacity of Recommissioned Mills was used by farmers for the 1953 and 1954 harvest.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The grain-drying plant operated by Recommissioned Mills Ltd. handled during the harvest period of 1953, by a special intensive effort, about 30 per cent more grain than its theoretical capacity under normal conditions. In the 1954 harvest period 40 per cent. of the capacity was used. Conditions in the two years were not, however, comparable because of the different arrangements for guaranteeing the price of home-grown grain to the farmer.

Mr. Crouch: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in view of the small amount of use that was made last year of these mills, his right hon. Friend would encourage farmers to make more use of these driers?

Mr. H. Nicholls: No, Sir. I do not think that my right hon. Friend would agree to that. The economic place to dry and store grain, as my hon. Friend will know, is on the farm, and the figures given to him reflect to a large extent the efforts which farmers have already made to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Elderly Workers (Committee's Report)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made towards implementing the recommendations contained in the first Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women, and when that committee will publish a Second Report.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): I would ask my hon. Friend to await the expected publication of the second Report of the National Advisory Committee towards the end of this year, which will, I understand, review the progress that has been made in carrying out its earlier recommendations.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is generally thought that this Committee is doing most valuable work? Is he fully satisfied that he is receiving the co-operation of both the nationalised and private sectors of industry in this matter?

Sir W. Monckton: I am very glad to agree with my hon. Friend about the value of the work of this Committee, and I can say that from all sections of industry, nationalised, private, and trade union, we are receiving ample support.

Productive Capacity (National Service)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the shortage of manpower, and the need for increased production, he will confer with representatives of industry regarding the effect of the continuance of two years' compulsory National Service upon the productive capacity of the nation, and issue a White Paper.

Sir W. Monckton: So long as the defence of the country necessitates the continuance of the present period of compulsory National Service, I can see no useful purpose in the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Yates: In view of the serious economic situation which has been revealed this week, and also the better international situation revealed by the Prime Minister yesterday, does not the Minister think it would serve a very useful purpose to have representatives of industry and the trade unions confer together and advise the Ministry on the use of manpower and the effect of this unnecessary two years' period of service on our productive capacity? Is he aware that there is very serious objection to this period on the part of employers in cities like Birmingham, and that we could make a much greater contribution to the export drive if further consideration were given to this matter?

Sir W. Monckton: We constantly confer—yesterday was the last occasion—about shortages of available labour that appear where we should like to see jobs taken up. The question of the necessity for the period of National Service, from the point of view of defence of the country, is not one that I can answer as Minister of Labour.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read this morning the leading article in the "Daily Herald," the official organ of the Labour Party, calling for reconsideration of the call-up and drawing attention to precisely the substance of the Question asked by my hon.


Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) about the effect on the economy of the country? In the circumstances, would not the Minister give some consideration to the views expressed by this very influential organ?

Sir W. Monckton: In order to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, I can say that I agree that there was an article on this matter, which I think was the second part of the "Daily Herald" leader to which he referred. We are constantly considering shortages, but the Question that I was asked was whether we would have a special conference with a view to issuing a White Paper. The decision rests on the necessity of the continuation of the period of National Service, and we do not need a White Paper on the use to which labour could be put if that necessity receded.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not a fact that among trade unionists and the management side of the industry, on both sides of the House, and amongst those who have military knowledge, there is no doubt that there could be a saving in manpower? Will the Minister not agree to the appointment of a committee of investigation, without tying the Government, and have an impartial investigation and report on which the House could decide whether there is anything in the claim made in the excellent leading article in the "Daily Herald" this morning?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think that there is need for a Committee of that kind. The effects are known but the decision must be the decision of the Government.

Mr. E. Johnson: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that however wise it may be to consult the leaders of industry and the trade unions about the effective use of manpower, it is not for either industry or the trade unions to decide the foreign policy or the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Drunkenness (Young Persons)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of convictions for drunkenness of young persons under the age of 18 for 1953 and

1954, respectively; and what steps he is taking to prevent the sale of all liquor on licensed premises to such persons.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): The only figures readily available are for young persons under 17 and for those aged 17 and under 21. The number of convictions for drunkenness of persons under 17 in England and Wales was 101 in 1953 and 136 in 1954; and of those aged 17 and under 21, 2,995 in 1953 and 3,366 in 1954.
Section 129 of the Licensing Act, 1953, prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquor to persons under 18 for consumption on the premises, except that beer, porter, cider or perry may be sold to a person who has attained the age of 16 for consumption at a meal, except in a bar. I have no reason to doubt that the police do all they can to enforce this prohibition.

Mr. Henderson: Have not many chief constables expressed the view that there is excessive drinking among young people, and that this is becoming a serious social problem? Is that the view of the Home Office?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Yes, Sir. I am aware that there has been a marked rise in drunkenness, and this is disturbing. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary is looking into the matter.

Mr. Mario Santini (Visa)

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will renew the visa of Mr. Mario Santini in order to enable him to continue his studies in Northern Ireland which have been interrupted by illness.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No, Sir. Mr. Santini has already had more than four years to pursue his studies in Northern Ireland and I regret that his record as a student would not justify my right hon. and gallant Friend in granting him any further extension of stay in this country.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: Taking into consideration that these matters were before his Department when he issued the visa a year ago, and that since then this young man has had a very serious illness, that he has friends in Northern Ireland who are prepared to assist him financially


there, and that, because there has been a change of regime in the country in which he was brought up he cannot return to that country, where his mother is now living, will my hon. Friend modify the decision of his Department and try to help this individual, who has had many misfortunes?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Santini's academic record has been thoroughly unsatisfactory. He failed his examinations during his first two years. During 1953–54 his attendance was very poor—it was not one quarter of the possible attendances. He enrolled only for evening classes in 1954–55 and his attendance during that period was even worse; and had it been known that he had so enrolled he would not have been granted an extension of his visa last year.

MALTA (ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE)

The Prime Minister: I will now answer Questions Nos. 47 and 48. The Round Table Conference on Malta will consist of the following:
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who will be chairman, and the noble Lord the Earl of Perth, and from this side of this House my right hon. Friends the Members for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken), Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) and Bridlington (Mr. Wood).
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will himself be a member and in addition he has nominated the noble Lord the Earl of Listowel and the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), South Shields (Mr. Ede) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths); and the hon. Members for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) will represent the Liberal Party.
The terms of reference of the Conference will be as follows:
To consider constitutional and related questions arising from proposals for closer associa-

tion between Malta and the United Kingdom and, in particular, from the proposal that Malta should in future be represented in the Parliament at Westminster.
To consult representatives of the political parties in the Legislative Assembly of Malta, and such other persons as may seem fit to them.
To report their conclusions and recommendations.
Our proposal is that the Conference should begin work on 19th September.
The House will understand that no decision will be taken upon these issues until Parliament re-assembles.

Mrs. White: As I understand that the Government in Malta have promised to submit any agreement, if one is reached, to a referendum, would the Prime Minister agree that it would be desirable to await the results of that referendum before reaching a decision in this matter?

The Prime Minister: As I think that it would be one of the matters on which I should like to have the advice of this Committee as to whether we do that first or whether we make our provisional approval subject to referendum, I do not think I should like to pronounce on it without that advice.

Mr. Teeling: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this conference will take place in public or in private? If it is to be in private, will there be any means whereby ordinary Members of Parliament can possibly be present?

The Prime Minister: It would, of course, be for the Conference itself to decide. I do not think that I should say what it should do.

THE LATE EARL LLOYD-GEORGE (MEMORIAL)

Mr. H. Morrison: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made with the plans for the memorial to the late Earl Lloyd-George?

The Prime Minister: I have appointed a Committee to advise Her Majesty's Government on the siting of the memorial statue and on the appointment of a sculptor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) has agreed to act as Chairman, and the following have also agreed to serve: the


right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), my noble Friend the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and Lady Megan Lloyd-George.

ISRAELI AIRLINER, BULGARIA (SHOOTING DOWN)

Mr. Robens: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the number of British nationals killed or injured in the recent shooting down of a civil aircraft over Bulgaria.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): Five United Kingdom British subjects are known to have been on board this Israeli airliner when it left London, but I am not yet able to say whether any others joined it at Paris or Vienna. There are no survivors. I know that the House will join with me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives.

Mr. Robens: On behalf of those on this side of the House, may I join in the right hon. Gentleman's expression of sympathy with the relatives of those who died? May I ask whether it is confirmed that the aircraft was shot down, and what representations the British Government are making?

Mr. Turton: Within the last few minutes the Bulgarian home service radio has made an announcement to the following effect:
The Israeli plane was flying off course near Blagoevgrad. Anti-aircraft fire was opened on the plane which crashed and was destroyed, all on board being killed. The Bulgarian Government deeply regrets the incident and has appointed a commission, headed by the Foreign Minister, to investigate the circumstances of the incident.

Mr. H. Morrison: Could the right hon. Gentleman, with the Foreign Secretary, consider whether something cannot be done to get some agreement whereby people do not shoot down civil planes which may be innocently off course. It

seems a terrible thing to do. Is there not some way in which they could be persuaded to signal to the aircraft so that it knows that it is off course—if that is alleged—so that the aircraft could be put on the right course? I think that the House will agree that this shooting down of aircraft in the way that has been going on is a brutal business.

Mr. Turton: I entirely share the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which a civil air liner on a scheduled flight could ever be legitimately shot down.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman also agree that it is quite contrary to all the rules of international law to use force of this nature against a civil air liner or 'plane of any kind in time of peace?

Mr. Turton: I think the House will realise that we have just heard of the expression of regret by the Government responsible and that a commission of inquiry is investigating. I think it would be unwise to say anything more at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: As the House will not be meeting for some time, can we have an assurance that the Government will pursue their inquiries with the utmost expedition, and also ensure that the Bulgarian Government live up to the promise they have made concerning regret and possible compensation, and see that no similar incident will arise in the future? May I endorse the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition that something should be done—how I cannot say, but it may be within the wit of the Government to find some means—of avoiding incidents of this kind in future by co-operation with other countries?

Mr. Turton: A commission of inquiry has been set up by the Bulgarian Government and we shall await its findings. However, immediately Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Sofia heard of the disaster he requested that the Vice-Consul should be allowed to visit the scene of the crash, which is in a frontier zone usually closed to foreigners, so we shall, we hope, soon have a report from the Vice-Consul.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY, COVENTRY (REDUNDANCY)

12.9 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I welcome the opportunity of raising, once again, the very disturbing question of redundancy in the aircraft industry and, in particular, at the Armstrong Whitworth factory at Coventry. Before I deal with the Armstrong Whitworth problem, I should like to make some general reference to the aircraft industry.
No one could doubt that the aircraft industry is sick. In reply to a Question which I put to the Minister of Supply— whom I am sorry not to see present today in spite of the notice I gave—on 12th July, he confirmed that during the three years from April, 1952, to March, 1955, nearly £500 million of public money had been paid out for aircraft. I am not sure whether the figure he gave referred solely to the production of aircraft, or whether it included capital investment in aircraft factories, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point.
In any case, the sum is a vast one and the fact remains that, despite this massive expenditure, the front-line aircraft which we require simply are not there. The nation has not had value for money and I believe that if the full story of the air- craft industry were told it would make the groundnuts story seem like chicken- feed. What we really need is a Select Committee to go into the question of the vast expenditure of public funds for aircraft which have not been developed. That is a matter of great anxiety to the nation as well as to my constituents in Coventry.
If this expenditure had resulted in the creation of a thriving industry, with the production lines steadily moving to build up a strong aircraft reserve, no one could complain unduly, but the record of production of the industry is notoriously bad, and I want to quote again some of the figures which the Minister himself mentioned only last week. In the last three years, four marks of Meteor, two of Venom, and one each of Baliol, Vampire, Canberra, Varsity,

Dragonfly and Firefly were discontinued. The value of orders for these aircraft which have been cancelled is about £70 million. In addition, the Swift contract ceased, the order for the Mark 4 was reduced, and the order for the Mark 6 was cancelled before any were delivered.
I refer to these matters not to denigrate the British aircraft industry but merely to emphasise how for a number of years it has been living to a great extent, and with a few notable exceptions, on the deserved prestige which it accumulated during the war. With the exceptions I have mentioned, the aircraft industry today is one of prototypes and promises. As far as production is concerned, we have had very little. If one goes to any of the major aircraft factories in this country one will see full car parks and empty hangars. That, unhappily, is the story of the industry today.
Now I want to turn from these general considerations to the particular matter of redundancy at Armstrong Whitworth. The Minister cannot say that he has not had due notice of this problem, because I went to see him last May and I warned him of the redundancy that was impending at Armstrong Whitworth. I told the Minister then that, unless he took action promptly to provide interim work at that factory in Coventry, there would be steady and progressive redundancy. The Minister accepted the point I made but, unhappily, again he did nothing about it and now we find that the prospect is that, by next April, 3,300 of the 8,000 workers at Armstrong Whitworth will be made redundant. As we know that Ministerial anticipations in these cases are liable to err on the side of conservatism, the figure may well be higher even than 3,300.
When I emphasised to the Minister that we in Coventry were greatly exercised by the problem, he said, in effect, "Do not worry. Coventry is a city of high employment and there is no reason to believe that the redundant men in the Armstrong Whitworth factory will not be rapidly absorbed into the motor industry in Coventry." To do him justice, the Minister could not have anticipated the announcement made by the Chancellor the day before yesterday. He could not have anticipated the intention of the Chancellor to slim down the motor industry. It may well be that when these


redundant workers who are leaving the Armstrong Whitworth factory approach the gates of Rootes or of Standard Motors in Coventry to get jobs, they may find themselves met by a stream of redundant motor workers leaving the motor industry because of the action of the Chancellor in cutting down that industry's total volume of production.
This is a serious matter. We know in Coventry how, overnight, the economic situation can change. Coventry depends in a great measure on the motor vehicle and aircraft industries. If, on the one side, through Ministerial inertia and incompetence, the aircraft industry is reduced in the way we are seeing it reduced, while, at the same time, by a deliberate act of Governmental policy, the motor industry is cut down as well, we may well find that the redundancy will soon be translated into real unemployment. What is more, it will be structural unemployment, because there will be no alternative industries where the skill of these workers can be absorbed.
This brings me to the major objection to the policy of the Minister in this matter. I say quite simply that his policy is both wasteful and uneconomic. It is wasteful because, by tolerating mass redundancy at Armstrong Whitworth, one of the finest aircraft companies in the whole country, he is ensuring a consequent tremendous loss of traditional skill; by allowing the teams of skilled men to be dispersed in the way he is allowing it, the Minister is ensuring that an industry which has been laboriously built up over a number of years will lose its strength and vitality.
There is even more to it than that. I charge the Minister and the Government with engaging in a policy which is seriously uneconomic. Here I must say, in parenthesis, that I find it extraordinary that at the time when these tremendous sums are being poured into the aircraft industry, the Chancellor should suddenly bring down his axe on the small business man who is trying to get an overdraft from his bank manager. I submit to the Minister that one of the most uneconomic activities in the country today lies in the operation of the aircraft industry and in the way in which the Government have been sustaining it without stint with public funds at a time when we are not receiving the goods.
Let me illustrate this matter of uneconomic work. There are today two factories producing the Hunter, the factory at Coventry and another at Blackpool. The factory at Blackpool is only four years old. A great number of workers have been assembled there to produce aircraft in that traditional seaside town. The Minister, in reply to the Question I put to him the other day, answered rather cautiously and warily that it seemed likely that the costs of production in Blackpool were somewhat higher per lb. of aircraft than in Coventry. Despite his caution, I suggest to the Minister categorically that the costs of production in Blackpool are inevitably substantially higher than the costs of production in Coventry. The reason is obvious. In Blackpool, only about 12 per cent. of the labour force of men are skilled in an engineering sense, whereas in Coventry the figure is about 85 per cent.
When we take as a test of the efficiency of the factories the amount of wastage in production, which is always a good test of efficiency, the potential wastage of the Coventry factory ranges from 0·9 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. That figure is the lowest that could be found in any comparable aircraft factory in the country.
It is obvious that at Armstrong Whitworth, in Coventry, we have a factory of traditional skill which has been built up over many years and which only recently was congratulated on having completed on time its production of aircraft for our offshore commitments. Armstrong Whitworth, by its nature, by its traditions, by the number of years in which it has been in operation and by the way in which it has assembled the cream of our skilled men, must be the most economic factory.
The Minister said that so far as he could see the production line in Blackpool had to be kept going, and then asked whether we wanted people to be made redundant in Blackpool. The answer, of course, is certainly not. What I have said about Blackpool is in no sense prejudicial to the workers of Blackpool, because workers have a collective interest everywhere. But, surely, when we are concerned with the economic working of the aircraft industry, it is right that the Minister should seek to keep in full production a factory which has such a long history of aircraft production, and that


in literally half destroying the labour force of that factory he is doing wrong and harm to the industry.
One point which the Minister has made is that, because Armstrong Whitworth is a private enterprise company, therefore he has no practical responsibility. His interest stops at that point and the firm must stand on its own legs. My reply to that is that it is most unjust to consider any firm in the aircraft industry as a genuinely private enterprise company. All these firms are sustained by public money, protected, and, indeed, cossetted by public money. In good times money flows into the industry, high dividends are paid, the share values appreciate; but now, in bad times, what do we see happening?
What happens is that without consideration at all—and I emphasise that—either for the dispersal of skill, or perhaps, what is more important, without any consideration for the human problem involved, nearly half of the workers in this great factory are progressively being made redundant. The Minister's inertia is creating alarm and anxiety in Coventry. It is not enough for him to say that the firm should go out and find export orders. It is not enough for him to say that it should go out and design new aircraft.
As the Minister knows, that cannot be done overnight. It is his responsibility, as it was his Socialist predecessor's responsibility in 1946–47, in precisely similar circumstances, when there was a threat of redundancy at the end of the war. The Socialist Minister then stepped in and ordered Apollo aircraft to be made at Armstrong Whitworth's, and so today, I suggest, it is the responsibility of the Minister to keep the factory in production by putting in civilian aircraft in order to tide the workers over during the present critical time.
As for the export industry, I still do not think that it is enough for the Minister to say, "Go out and get orders." When the motor industry was in like case, Sir Stafford Cripps took very urgent action, despite all the hostility of the motor manufacturers. When he urged them to go out and get export orders, he took the necessary physical action to direct production into the export industry.
I want to do all that I can, with my hon. Friends from the Midlands and from

Coventry in particular, to protest against the shameful drift to unemployment—let us call it by its real name—which is now affecting the aircraft workers of Coventry. On behalf of my constituents—the workers who are most directly concerned in the matter—I ask the Minister not only to explain the disastrous disintegration which is now taking place, but to stop it before it gets worse, and, finally, to take effective action to provide some of the most skilled men in the country with the security which is their right and the opportunity to use their labour in the way that the nation requires.

12.25 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I should like to emphasise, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), that we did not desire that unemployment should be transferred from Coventry to Blackpool, and I should like also to make the point that when we went to see the Minister we were asked whether we would suggest an increase in orders for military aircraft, so that Coventry might be kept fully employed. We all said to the Minister that, naturally, the hon. Members representing Coventry were very glad of any easement in the international situation which does, shall I say, damage us in one way in that the production of military aircraft becomes less essential but that in Coventry we thought it was the duty of the Government to help by every means possible the development and expansion of civil aircraft to take its place.
I would say that particularly in the case of Coventry, because we have established there, as I think the Minister will admit, a labour force of highly skilled and specialised workers, which, we believe, cannot be equalled and certainly not excelled in any other part of the country. We believe that the country can ill afford to disband or to lose that specialised labour force. We believe that, as this labour force was assembled in Coventry to meet the special needs of the defence programme, the Government have some responsibility for it.
We felt very much, when we went to see the Minister of Supply, that he was ready to wash his hands of this situation, and to say, "There is not this need for these military aircraft any longer, and, as Minister of Supply, my job is to see that


the Services receive the aircraft ordered, and, therefore, in effect, I can do nothing about it." The Minister said at that meeting that nothing that took place there was private, so I am not giving away any secrets. I should like to say that we were not impressed. I can definitely say that we were not satisfied with the attitude of the Minister.
The Minister knew that we were going to the meeting, because my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) had obtained this appointment for us, and he must have known the sort of points which we would raise. I was amazed that when we asked him, in effect, why this had occurred in Coventry—we probed and probed—the Minister practically knew nothing at all about it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. F. J. Erroll) indicated dissent.

Miss Burton: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but I shall pursue this matter, because we did ask him, first, whether the reason was, as he seemed to imply, that the production of similar aircraft was less efficient in Coventry than it was in Blackpool. Although I am speaking from memory, the impression I got was that the Minister believed that to be the case. He said that he had not got the facts, but he believed that to be the case.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: Would it not be true that the Minister said that the company's view was that it was producing more efficiently in Blackpool? I think that is the verbatim of what he said.

Miss Burton: I gladly accept that.
The second point concerned the question of expense. The Minister said that it was his job to spend the country's money as economically as possible. We all agree. He then told us that if the work were transferred from Coventry to Blackpool, the country would lose money —it was not an economic proposition. When we asked him—because we then found out that exactly the same work was being done in Coventry as in Blackpool—what would be the relative cost between the two, I was flabbergasted to find that the Minister did not know. He said that he would find out; but he did not know. We were left in the position that in Coventry our workers were being made

redundant, but we did not know that Blackpool was more efficient than Coventry, or that Blackpool was any cheaper than Coventry.
This was an astounding exhibition of ignorance on the part of the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North has mentioned unemployment figures which the Minister has since given us, but at the meeting the right hon. Gentleman did not know them. When we asked him how long the lag would drag on, he did not know. It seems to me almost inconceivable that a Minister should receive a deputation of hon. Members upon a specific problem and yet have no facts to give them. We got the Minister's good wishes, but that did not amount to anything.
I now come to the incredible statement by the Minister that if the men were out of work there were plenty of vacancies in Coventry. That is a mistake which the general public might have made, but surely not a Minister. We know that there are plenty of vacancies in Coventry, but they are not for this type of skill, and that is what is worrying us. I should have thought the Minister would have known that. Certainly in Coventry we have more jobs than we have people to fill them, but we have not enough jobs going begging for this type of skilled worker. The Minister calmly suggests that the lag might last until next March. I do not know what he proposes the 3,000 men should do between now and next March. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us.
In reply to a Question on 18th July, the Minister said not that production was more efficient in Coventry but that it was equally satisfactory in Coventry and Blackpool. We do not wish to belittle Blackpool, but we consider that the production of aircraft in an engineering city like Coventry must be infinitely superior to that of a seaside town.
We then find from a reply to a supplementary question on 18th July that production in Coventry, far from being more expensive, is "a little cheaper in Coventry." We were then given a most extraordinary reason, from the Minister's point of view, for this. He said that it was because
…the Blackpool factory is less fully loaded …[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 5.]


It seems to me that Coventry is being penalised for having a fully loaded programme which it is carrying out more efficiently and cheaper than anybody else. That seems to be an extraordinary method of saving the country's money. There is considerable disquiet over the Government's action. I do not want to be unfair, but it appears to me that not a single good reason has been advanced for the cutting down in Coventry.
I now come to my last point, and I should be glad if the Minister could clear it up. There has been considerable disquiet over the fact that the Gloster Aircraft Company has been advertising vacancies. I am sure that what the Minister of Supply said was true, but I should be glad to have his words confirmed. I understood him to say that the advertisements on behalf of the company would not result in a bigger increase than 40 in the present labour force and were for the purpose of covering that and wastage.
We appreciate that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Supply to order the aircraft which the Services require, but we believe that the Government themselves also have a responsibility in this matter. We believe that it is the duty of the Government to keep together the highly skilled labour force which we have assembled in Coventry, and we believe that that should be done through civil aircraft expansion. We see no reason for the Minister's action.

12.35 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I will not detain the House more than a few minutes after the very full speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and Coventry, South (Miss Burton).
This is of more than local importance. It is a test case. The way in which the Minister handles the problem of the Armstrong-Whitworth Company, in Coventry, will be indicative of the way in which he will handle the much greater cut-back in defence which is likely to result in the next two years from the easing up of the cold war.
I want to emphasise something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South. There was a slight jeer, I thought, in the Minister's reply when he said:

I have explained that I cannot order aircraft beyond the requirements of the Services. We are often pressed by hon. Members opposite to reduce expenditure on defence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 4.]
That is true, but I should like to explain to the Parliamentary Secretary that the 25,000 Coventry workers who today are engaged in arms production are not at all happy that they depend on arms for their living.
When the war ended, in 1945, we had an even higher proportion of our working population dependent upon arms for a living. We then had the switch-over to peace production under the Labour Government, and it took place virtually without unemployment because it was planned. We are now telling the Government that they should try to do as well as the Labour Government did in 1945 with their gigantic switch-over. The present switch-over is a relatively small one.
We want to know how the Government plan to switch production from war to peace, what alternative peace-time production they are planning for the factories and for the labour which will be declared redundant for war-time production. This is the Government's direct responsibility, and the Armstrong-Whitworth Company provides their first test case.
I want, further, to ask about concentration. We know quite well that in 1951 the arms industry had to be rapidly expanded. We know the way in which it was done; it was done much as it was during the war. There was also the policy of dispersal. I can well understand that policy in 1951 and 1952, when we were seriously concerned whether these islands would be engaged in war. It may well have been defensible then to say that it was better to disperse the production to Blackpool, where it would be well on the western side of Britain and not to concentrate any more arms production in Coventry.
In 1955, we have an entirely different situation. According to the Minister, we are having a general cut-back in aircraft production. I should have thought that that meant we should cut back the inessential factories and concentrate the limited amount of production in the traditional centres of arms production where the skill exists.
What is the Minister doing? He is leaving alone the dispersal factory at Blackpool and cutting down in the heart of the arms industry. That seems crazy. What is the reason for it? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South that we have been baffled by the Minister's outrageous reply. Challenged by the deputation, he did not know the facts. He has said that:
On a lb. for lb. basis the Hunters being produced by Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft Limited, may be a little cheaper than those being produced at Blackpool."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 5.]
The phrase "may be" is a masterpiece; either they are or they are not. Of course they are. "May be" means "I do not like to admit it. I did not take the trouble to find out previously. I must now agree with you that production is equally efficient at Coventry and cheaper." The reason why production is cheaper at Coventry is that our line is in full production and the Blackpool line is not, yet the Minister is cutting down the full production line.
Our deputation had at least the effect of showing that the Government's decision was taken without bothering to compare the cost of production and efficiency in both places and that they decided in favour of the seaside resort against the traditional centre of production. What we say to the Government is that if this is the way they are going to cut back and switch over from war to peace in the rest of the country, there will be an organised stir of protest throughout the engineering industry. This treatment of the industry makes no sense whatever.
I must warn the Minister—I am sorry to say this—how the workers feel when they find that there is no rational reason for the Government's action. They begin to hear rumours about politics. People have noticed who the hon. Members for Blackpool are and that they are Conservatives, whereas the hon. Members representing Coventry are Labour. I do not say that there is a word of truth in this, but I only say it is bound to be thought, when it is seen that Blackpool has been favoured, that it has been favoured for straight political reasons. It will be very difficult for the Minister to deny that, if he can find no other reason why it should have been favoured.
I can see that hon. Members for seaside resorts should try to strengthen

employment in their resorts and add something to the boarding houses, but we are bound to resist that sort of treatment, we who represent the traditional heart of the engineering industry. We want from the Parliamentary Secretary something a great deal better than he and the Minister, after pressure, gave us at his meeting with the deputation, after saying that he would look into it, knowing that we could do it cheaper, knowing our volume of production was greater.
The Government say that it is too late to change. It is not too late to change. The Government can decide to keep Armstrong Whitworth functioning if they admit making a mistake. Why not admit the mistake and keep this labour force going? It would be better to do that than to go ahead under the suspicion that this was a little piece of political subterfuge.

12.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), in whose name the Adjournment debate stands, intended, I understood, to speak solely about the unemployment situation at Armstrong Whitworth aircraft works, but he opened his remarks by making some points broader than those covered by the title of the debate, or by the Questions answered a fortnight ago, out of which the present debate arises. I am sure, therefore, that he will not expect me today to try to answer in detail those broader issues which he raised in his usual cogent way.
I should say, however, that the position is not nearly so bad as he made out, that various marks of aircraft have not been discontinued, but revised because of changing requirements. The figure of £500 million which he quoted has produced many types, Meteors, Venoms, Hunters, Canberras, Sea Hawks, Gannetts, and Vampires. The Swift and Firefly aircraft were rejected, because they were not up to requirements and in a rapidly evolving technical field there must be occasional failures in what is, in general, a programme of remarkable success and achievement.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North, the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) all made


remarks about my right hon. Friend which I should like to take this opportunity of refuting straight away. I know how closely concerned my right hon. Friend has been with this whole question, and I know that he was most anxious to give the fullest possible replies to the deputation which came to see him. I can only say that, however well briefed a man may be, there may be questions raised orally at a meeting for which he cannot have answers ready in advance and, equally, as a result of the able speeches made just now, I do not expect to be able to answer every single point put to me, although I have tried a great deal over the last three or four days to be ready for every possible question that might arise.
The Minister has been particularly concerned with the redundancy question and I regret very much the remarks which have been made about his so-called ignorance, or lack of courtesy.

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that any of us wanted to suggest that the Minister was discourteous. We merely said that he was ignorant.

Mr. Erroll: I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend was anything but ignorant, but to make sure that everything he said could be used afterwards by those who came to see him, he had to be careful in measuring his words so that everything he said could be made public afterwards and what may have appeared to the deputation as his ignorance was, in fact, a desire to help them, so that they would not feel that they were in any way inhibited from using the information that had been obtained.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East regards this as a test case. He asked how the Government were to switch over from war to peace. That, of course, is a very big issue. I realise that this is an important case, but I do not think that it is possible to discuss, in the course of a short Adjournment debate, the whole issue of a change-over from wartime to peace-time production. So I hope that I will not be accused of ignorance, complacency, or inertia—although I see that, according to the hon. Member for Coventry, North, the name of the Department is to be the "Ministry of Inertia"—if I do not try to deal with some of the very wide

issues which the hon. Member has very righly raised.
I should prefer to come straight to the subject matter of the debate, namely, the situation at the Armstrong Whitworth works. I should like to congratulate hon. Members opposite on the admirable constituency speeches which they have made. It is a matter of obvious and real concern to them that there should be this threat of redundancy. I know from the meeting which I had with the shop stewards at the works how very sincere and genuine are the feelings of doubt and anxiety which hon. Members have expressed this morning. I fully understand and sympathise with those feelings and believe that it is absolutely right that those views should be expressed on the Floor of the House.
Nevertheless, I should like to refute any suggestion that there is any politics in this and that Blackpool is being favoured because it is a Conservative constituency at the expense of Coventry, a Labour area. That is a very mischievous thing to say, and without any foundation whatsoever. In fact, it may be said by people in Blackpool that there was pressure being built up in the House of Commons by Labour Members for Coventry to create unemployment in Blackpool. That is the sort of thing which could be said by people if that line of argument were to be pursued. I should like to refute the suggestion that politics of that sort has played any part in the decision of the Ministry of Supply and I hope that that type of argument will not be pursued in public, for what in private may be a facetious or satirical remark may be misunderstood by the public at large.
The difficulty of explaining the situation at Armstrong Whitworth arises because it is complicated. It is not just a matter of the relative efficiency between one works and another. It is also a matter of programming various types of aircraft in the different aircraft works of the country. It will be best if I summarise the recent history of production at these works, as that will serve to explain the present changes in the programme.
Before the rearmament programme, launched after the outbreak of war in Korea, Armstrong Whitworth was employing about 5,000 people. As the rearmament programme developed, so the


Armstrong Whitworth labour force increased to a maximum of about 8,000. The firm has had a long run of production of different types of jet aircraft, about 1,200 Meteors, Sea Hawks and Hunters. This production run will come to an end early next year when the present contract for Hunters is due to be completed.
There are likely to be no further requirements for Meteors, Sea Hawks, nor the Hunters with Sapphire engines which have all been made by A.W.A. The balance of requirements of Hunters with the Avon engine, for which A.W.A. was brought in to make 100 as a supplement to the production of Hawker's factory, will be well within the capacity of Hawker factories at Kingston and Blackpool. It is not just a question of Blackpool versus Coventry, but of the Blackpool and Kingston factories being an integral part of the Hawker organisation.
As regards the future of A.W.A., it had long been envisaged that when the orders for Sea Hawks and Hunters had been completed—and it was realised they would be completed in the near future—the company would switch over to Javelin sub-contract work from Glosters, the parent firm for the Javelin, which has received Ministry of Supply orders for this aircraft. Continuity of work was envisaged and is still intended. A.W.A. is beginning to make component parts for the Javelin and also assembling a certain number of completed aircraft towards the total current programme of Javelins for the R.A.F. On the basis of this programme alone, the amount of Javelin work available for A.W.A. was not expected to absorb the whole of the labour force of about 6,400 employed at the company's Baginton works. The total labour force of about 8,000 includes those employed at another works at Whitley, and also those employed in the final assembly and flight testing establishment at Bitteswell.
Right from the start there have been good reasons for expecting that substantial export orders would be obtained for the Javelin in addition to orders received from the R.A.F. If these export orders are received, they will either increase the peak production rate or, alternatively, the total length of the production run and in that way we hope that there will be more work for the employees of A.W.A.
Here, I must emphasise another point of great importance, particularly when hon. Members opposite are accusing the Minister of Supply of not doing enough. A.W.A. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hawker-Siddeley group, and the group has a decisive rôle to play in the reallocation of work among its constituent members. On 18th July, the Minister said that the group are making every effort by reallocation of subcontract work to minimise redundancies. This is a matter primarily for the group, and the Ministry of Supply is anxious to give all the assistance it can within the limits which I shall shortly describe.
Production is only one part of the problem. The design team of the A.W.A. is a good one, and the production side of the firm, as hon. Members have said, is one of the best in the country. Although A.W.A.'s design team has shown considerable promise in designs recently submitted, it has not for some time gone into production on a successful aircraft of its own, and future opportunities are likely to be few. As hon. Members will appreciate, production to a particular design usually follows on in the same factory, unless requirements are so large as to necessitate setting up a second line of production elsewhere.
There are certain developments in the guided weapons field taking place at Armstrong Whitworth's Whitley factory, but the production stage is unlikely to be reached for some time. So the picture is of an important production organisation, with a design team which has shown promise but which has not succeeded recently in producing a successful aircraft, and the possibility of some work in another field.
On present estimates which the firm has made, it looks as though the labour force at A.W.A. will come down progressively to about the level at which it stood before the rearmament drive began. There is no question of the company going out of existence or being sacrificed in any way. It is simply that the peak of the rearmament production to meet particular requirements has passed, and that Armstrong Whitworth, one of the firms which helped to meet this peak requirement, must now return to something like its former level of activity.
I should like to deal with the question of the allocation of work to Blackpool


as distinct from A.W.A. Here again, it is a complicated picture and not as simple as hon. Members opposite have inferred. It must be remembered at the start that orders for the Hunter are diminishing, and that in the next two years they will certainly not be capable of sustaining three production units. Hawkers is the parent firm of the Hunter and the Blackpool firm is an integral part of Hawkers. It is right, therefore, that Hawkers should have first claim to these diminishing orders. Furthermore, the Blackpool works produced the Hunter F.4, and should logically go on to produce the Hunter Trainer. This is a variant of the F.4, and an order for it will shortly be placed on Kingston for execution at Blackpool.
The Kingston works of Hawkers can, in fact, meet all future requirements for the F.6 Hunter, but, nevertheless, 50 of this mark were ordered for manufacture at Blackpool to fill a gap between the end of the F.4 production and the beginning of the Hunter Trainer production. This will ensure that the jigs and tools for the F.4 will be used at Blackpool, thus avoiding the considerable cost of transferring them to another works, which is a factor we must take into account.
It could be argued that the 50 F.6s placed on Blackpool should be transferred to A.W.A. But this would not solve A.W.A.'s redundancy problem, since the order would amount to only a few months' work, which Hawkers' Kingston works could, in any case, have carried out for themselves had they wished. The withdrawal of the work from Blackpool would create a problem there considerably greater than any alleviation provided to A.W.A. If the F.6 and the Trainer were both withdrawn from Blackpool, it would mean that this factory, which employs about 4,300 workers, would come to a complete stop. Present plans do not involve anything so drastic at A.W.A. While it appears, on the surface, that Blackpool is getting an advantage, in actual fact it will suffer far more drastically if the work is switched to A.W.A. and—

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Gentleman is producing a very subtle and complicated argument which I have endeavoured to follow closely. But his argument rests on

what we describe as division of power, or authority, between the Ministry and the Hawker Aircraft Co. Is it not the case that, whatever term be used, the Ministry ultimately has to provide the greater part of the public money for the production of aircraft, and that the Ministry either has the last say, or should have, or the power to determine where the aircraft should be manufactured? But it is the case that they could be made more cheaply in Coventry certainly the F.6 could be made more cheaply in Coventry.

Mr. Erroll: I think it fair to say that, as a last resort, the Ministry, as the customer, could dictate where the aircraft should be made. But in assessing the cost, one must take into account the cost of switching production from one works to another, which can be quite considerable.
I wish to turn to the question of relative efficiency, because it is not solely a matter of the cost of one aircraft as against another made at another works. The Minister said, in answer to a question, that the Hunters may be produced more cheaply at the A.W.A. works than at Blackpool—

Mr. Crossman: That means that they are.

Mr. Erroll: The point is that it is not an exact comparison, because the reason for the difference is due almost entirely to the fact that the Blackpool factory is less fully loaded than the A.W.A. factory and we consider that—

Mr. R. Moss: Mr. R. Moss (Meriden) rose—

Mr. Erroll: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have hardly time to complete my own remarks.
We consider that if both plants were operating at the same level, the price would be nearly the same at Blackpool as at Coventry, and that any switch of orders now from Blackpool would only increase the cost of such work as was left there and that would not lead to any overall saving in public funds. If I may anticipate what I think the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) was about to say, we have gone carefully into the question of the relative scrap figures and the quality of the products from Blackpool and from A.W.A. is equally satisfactory. The percentage of scrap produced at each works is quite reasonable, and I


can say that the figures at both factories are good when all factors are taken into account.

Mr. Edelman: What are the figures for scrap?

Mr. Erroll: I think that the figures would be misleading if looked at in isolation.

Mr. Moss: Mr. Moss rose—

Mr. Erroll: I am sorry, I must continue.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South asked particularly about advertising for jobs by Glosters. I am very glad to be able to confirm once again that the firm is only advertising a few vacancies in order to maintain the balance of its labour force. The firm is advertising to meet normal wastage and to fill about 40 vacancies in certain departments, but there is no question of a large-scale recruiting campaign.
It is, of course, difficult to be certain about future labour prospects in the Coventry area, but I think that the hon. Member for Coventry, North was being unduly pessimistic when he spoke about unemployment in the motor industry. There is no sign of that, although, perhaps, a larger proportion of cars may be exported than is sold on the home market. Therefore, I think it fair to say that most of the redundant workers at A.W.A. will be able to find alternative work in the engineering industry in and around Coventry.
There are about nine jobs available for every person on the books in the Coventry area, so that there should be no difficulty in everybody being able to find another job. Indeed, there is such pressure for labour in Coventry that it attracts men from the surrounding towns of Rugby, Nuneaton, Wolverhampton and Birmingham, although these towns, too, have a labour shortage.
I think it reasonable to say that jobs will be available for most of the 3,300

men which A.W.A. might have to lose. Furthermore, the available work will be in the engineering industry, although not, of course, in exactly the same class of job that every man has been doing, and there may be some change in the size of the pay packets which they take home.
I can hardly deal with the wider issues which were raised in the course of such a short Adjournment debate, but, nevertheless, I think I have been able to make it plain that there will still be a substantial load of work for A.W.A., but that after the expected redundancies the level of employment will be nearer that of the years before the beginning of the present rearmament programme.
The completion of requirements for certain types of aircraft such as the Hunter, on which Hawkers has been chiefly engaged, is now in sight, and that must be accepted. The next generation of aircraft will not only be more expensive, but also more lethal, and we are unlikely to require them in such great numbers as those which have been in production up till now for the Services. We shall still be making heavy demands on our design and development resources, but we must expect defence demands on the production side of the aircraft industry to be lower in the future.
The Ministry of Supply, despite what has been said to the contrary, can only place orders in accordance with the stated requirements of the Services and within the limits of the moneys voted by Parliament. We cannot place orders for civil aircraft to satisfy the wishes of individual factories. Within these limitations, the Department will continue to do what it can to alleviate the situation which has developed at A.W.A., but the Ministry cannot place orders for aircraft merely to provide employment for workers in a particular factory in a locality where, as I have already mentioned, a large number of vacancies already exist; nor can we divert work from other factories the sole effect of which would be to create equal or greater redundancies in those factories.

TRUNK ROADS, SCOTLAND

1.5 p.m.

Mr. H. R. Spence: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment some of the problems which will have to be considered when we set about improving our main trunk road system in Scotland. Some of the arguments which I shall use apply to the whole country, but there are particular aspects of design and layout where, I think, special and urgent treatment is required north of the Border.
It is, I think, common ground that the same principles of design, construction and general layout should apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. Indeed, it was for this purpose that the Ministry of Transport was made the responsible authority for the whole country. Now that we are about to embark on this first really big comprehensive post-war scheme of reconstruction of our roads, I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will use all the accumulated experience, knowledge and technique that has been built up by his research department in the best possible planning and use of the money to be spent.
I believe that the country would welcome from the Minister a statement about the lines on which he proposes to proceed and also an assurance that the roads of the whole country will be planned on the best possible layout that can be devised. When the Ministry took over the over-riding authority for all the main trunk roads it inherited a wide variety of schemes which had been produced in different counties. Therefore, in the large scheme now envisaged, we have the opportunity of getting the very best value out of the money we spend.
Apart from the main improvements that can be made by complete reconstruction and alteration, there are also smaller improvements which could be made fairly rapidly by improving quite minor points that would contribute to safety and to the convenience of road users. The first purpose, of course, must be the avoidance of accidents, and the second the provision of highways so devised that there can be a smooth and uninterrupted flow of traffic, thus saving time, overtime money and tempers.
It is my purpose to suggest to the Minister that there is a variety of things which can be done, particularly in Scotland, at not very great immediate expenditure which would very largely assist in promoting the better use and better condition of the roads and the avoidance of congestion.
My first point is the question of the need for lay-bys at suitable points on the main trunk roads of Scotland for the parking of heavy commercial traffic and other traffic. I have occasion to motor from end to end of the country, and I cannot help being impressed by the extraordinary difference that exists in the approach to this question of lay-bys where, virtually, we have none in terms of what really are needed. Many of those that were constructed, perhaps some time ago, are inadequate for modern needs.
I believe that the provision of lay-bys can very greatly reduce the accident rate on roads. There is no doubt that the parked vehicle is almost the greatest cause of accidents, especially at night. I am certain that lay-bys could be provided at comparatively small cost. It is essential that lorries should be able to pull in off the main roads, and I will say a word or two about what I consider to be the correct siting for lay-bys.
It is the normal practice for the drivers of heavy lorries, when moving off with mixed loads, to drive on for a few miles to allow the load to settle, and then to pull in and see how the load is riding and whether any tightening up of the ropes is necessary. When there is no lay-by, as is so very often the case in Scotland, this job has to be done on the main road, which causes congestion. Indeed, very few of our main roads carry three lanes of traffic; nearly all have only two. On the outskirts of large towns, one often finds in the mornings a succession of lorries the ropes of which are being adjusted on the main road instead of on some convenient lay-by.
I suggest that if we can produce a scheme for the provision of lay-bys throughout our main trunk roads, we can provide greater safety and far greater smoothness and continuity of traffic. The provision of lay-bys should be a "must" in the Minister's new programme of road reconstruction, and he should consider this provision almost as a first move before considering some of the larger


expenditures which will be made on what we might call strategic trunk roads throughout the country.
The lay-by is necessary at a fairly short distance from the main centres of production and population so that the driver may readjust the load, and also because lorries may have to wait when commercial loads have to be delivered to a fairly rigid time-table. If there is no lay-by on which the lorry can wait, it must idle on the road before the time arrives for the delivery of the load. Therefore, the provision of lay-bys is essential on our main roads today, and I think the facts are proved by the answers which the Minister has given to Questions about the number of lay-bys in Scotland. We are lagging so far behind England in the provision of lay-bys that this question ought to be dealt with right away.
The impelling motive in my raising this matter today has been the recent rebuilding of a section of road quite near to Aberdeen, in my own constituency. The manner in which the reconstruction has been carried out has brought a storm of protest to me about the things that have and have not been done. Here is the case of a main road leading from Aberdeen to Elgin and Inverness. The new road avoids a number of curves and awkward corners, and in some places the old road runs parallel to and level with the new road.
Instead of using this convenient stretch of the old road as a lay-by, it has been kerbed and fenced off. It runs for three-quarters of a mile alongside the new road right to the outskirts of Aberdeen with no lay-by, other than a rather inefficient one, which is not quite suitable, because it is on a heavy gradient, and is the old road further up the same hill. It is on one side, and the entrance angles are too abrupt, and, indeed, on the north side the entrance is screened by trees.
Here was a splendid opportunity for the provision of adequate lay-bys to be made at practically no cost, and it has been completely missed and neglected. It is for these reasons that I want to focus the attention of the Minister on this very important question, because if this kind of thing has arisen in my own constituency, it may well be going on elsewhere in Scotland.
In the provision of lay-bys, there are a number of criteria which, I think, must be adhered to. They concern the types and locations, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will accept a kind of standard code for constructing a lay-by and locating and signposting it in relation to the general layout of the road system. I venture to make a number of suggestions about what I think should be done.
All lay-bys should have advance sign-posting, because we now get lorries from all over the country moving to areas in which the drivers do not know the location of the lay-bys. Lay-bys must also be planned on either side of main roads, and it should be made an offence for a driver to pull across a main road to park his vehicle in a lay-by on the opposite side. That practice is a very frequent cause of accidents. The angle of approach to the lay-by must be gradual, and the length must be sufficient to allow a heavy lorry with a trailer to pull in and straighten out.
The site for a lay-by should be approximately level, and should be reasonably near—within a mile or two—of the main centres of production or of population. There should be ample clear visibility in either direction, and I think that, eventually, the Minister should envisage even going to the length of encouraging the construction of lay-bys for bus stops on main roads wherever possible.
Now I come to methods of construction. This must depend to some extent on the subsoil, though in no case do we need the heavy macadamising and reinforcing which is required for a main road. I ask the Minister whether he will consider having experiments made in the use of mesh netting which was so successful on our airstrips during the war. When laid down, it allowed heavy aircraft to take off quite easily and also to be parked. I believe that the use of mesh netting might form the basis of a very cheap and practical form of lay-by.
I should now like to refer some other points which, I think, should be discussed when we are talking of lay-bys, and one of these is the question of the kerbs. I motor 20,000 miles or more a year, and I cannot help being impressed by the different views and lines of thought that obtain in different parts of the country.


It seems to me, from my experience on main roads in England, that, on balance, the raised kerb has been bound to be a danger. On different parts of A.1, I now notice that the kerb has been sunk flush.
The raised kerb constitutes a danger, and could cause the overturning of a skidding car. It also has the disadvantage that 2 or 3 feet on each side of the road are wasted because nobody likes to drive very close to it. There is also the danger in an emergency of a skidding car striking the kerb, causing it to rebound into the opposite traffic stream. All these things are obviated if the kerb is flush, and I think I am right in saying that an inquiry has already been held on this point. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about it.
The one case in which a raised kerb may be justified is where there is a footpath, because there we must have protection for the pedestrian, but on so many of our roads today, especially in the country and away from the main centres, there are no footpaths, or even cycling paths in the case of Scotland. In that case, the flush kerb is the right thing. It is wrong, however, to build new roads with raised kerbs, as they are in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that.
Another matter to which I want to refer is the width of traffic lanes. Modern practice has found that this width should be not less than 24 feet for three-lane traffic. My feeling is that the increasing size of lorries and motor coaches necessitates our looking very carefully at our standards of width because, as the traffic gets wider, unless the road expands the amount of room becomes less. Today, we are in danger of reaching a very critical point upon some Scottish roads, which are not as wide as those in other parts of the country.
I am certain that a comparatively small expenditure upon lay-bys would bring a rich dividend in convenience and in the avoidance of accidents. Once we find what is the best layout and standard of design for kerbs or lay-bys, and the general structure of our roads, it should be applied quite fearlessly to the whole country. The Minister will get our full support in whatever he wishes to do.

1.22 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I want to raise the question of trunk roads in Scotland. I thought that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) would deal with the subject in a much wider sense. There is no doubt, however, that the matters which he raised are exceedingly important, especially in view of the fact that the average Scottish trunk road tends to be narrower than it is south of the Border. I want to refer especially to the fact that the Government yesterday announced their programme for the next three years for trunk roads in Scotland—at least I saw a report in the "Scotsman" to that effect. In this statement the Government detail eleven schemes in connection with trunk roads in Scotland with which they intend to proceed during the next three or four years.
We shall all be glad if those schemes are proceeded with during that time, because those of us who know the places mentioned know quite well that these schemes are very long overdue. Upon looking over these schemes and the programme of the Government, which is to last until 1960, it seems to me, however, that they are introducing a very modest development plan for these trunk roads. As far as I can understand from reading the particulars of the schemes, about 20 miles of trunk roads in Scotland are to be reconstructed during the next three or four years.
I welcome the fact that we are to have a by-pass for Dalkeith, but that should have been constructed long ago. I also welcome the fact that the by-pass at Dunbar—the A.1 road—is to be widened and straightened. I should have thought, however, that it was about time that the A.1 road was made to by-pass Mussel-burgh. It seems a peculiar procedure to widen and straighten the A.1 trunk road and then to have this tortuous and very narrow section when it enters and passes through Musselburgh before entering Edinburgh.
It is about time that the question of a by-pass road for Musselburgh was given more serious thought. It has been talked about for some time, and it ought now to be developed into something of a reality. Not only is the section of road narrow—it runs into a bottleneck in the middle of Musselburgh High Street—but


it has one or two very dangerous corners, especially the one where the Eskside road runs into the A.1 trunk road. That is a completely blind corner. A considerable amount of traffic passes this spot, but the Minister of Transport has refused to allow traffic lights to be fixed for the safety of pedestrians and the convenience of motor traffic entering from Eskside.
I was surprised when I heard this, because the local council of Musselburgh made representations to the Minister in connection with the matter, and I should have thought that the council knew as much about the requirements of the roads running through its burgh as did the Minister. In view of the desire of the local council to place traffic lights on the A.1 trunk road at the junction with the Eskside road in Musselburgh, the Minister ought to give more consideration to that proposal. I have stood at that corner and watched the immense amount of traffic. It is a blind corner, and the Minister should give this matter further consideration.
Having read the list of projects for the main traffic roads in Scotland for the next four years, it seems to me that we can say goodbye to any start being made upon the Forth Road Bridge before 1960. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State would agree with that, but there is certainly no indication of it from the statement which has been made, It seems that, no matter what may be the observations concerning the merits of the road bridge as opposed to the tunnel, or what may be the findings of the committee, a start will not be made before 1960. This will be very disappointing to the people of Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary, of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): The statement made about that project stands literally—every word of it.

Mr. Willis: Then, when the Committee reports, shall we get on with this road bridge or tunnel?

Mr. Stewart: We stand by the pledge which we gave.

Mr. Willis: I have not yet been able to understand this pledge. I am still left in some doubt whether this project will be started before 1960, no matter what may be the findings of the committee. From

the statement made by the Government yesterday, it certainly appears that it will not be started before 1960. If the Minister can give us a definite assurance that when the committee reports and makes its recommendations as to the most suitable form of crossing, we will then proceed with it, I am quite certain that it will give a great deal of satisfaction to the people of Scotland. At present, the situation is very unsatisfactory and we ought to have something more definite, particularly in view of the exclusion of any reference to this matter in the statement that was made by the Government yesterday.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I intervene very briefly to support what has been so well said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I agree with every word that they said, and I think they made extremely constructive contributions to our thinking on this vitally important subject.
Much of what has been said is as applicable to the rest of this island as it is to Scotland itself. It is incumbent upon the Government to do everything in their power to deal with this appalling problem of road accidents. I regard it as one of the major social problems of the day. If we had a railway accident which involved a hundred deaths every week, we should have a kind of social revolution. The country would not stand for it. But because the accidents happen one by one, instead of a hundred at a time in one great crash, the newspapers do not notice it, and we allow this appalling evil to go on, with all the suffering, misery, bereavement and waste of economic resources involved.
The cost at the very least is £150 million a year. That does not appear in the Treasury accounts, but it is not an imaginary piece of fancy theory. It is a real cost which the nation bears, and to reduce which we ought to be ready for a large capital investment. In fact, what both hon. Members have proposed would not involve any large capital investment. Very modest sums would be involved, but this expenditure would lead to a very considerable reduction in the accident rate which we suffer today.
Lay-bys are important. The question of kerbs is one on which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West has probably said almost the last word. I agree with everything that he said. I would only add that there ought to be many more footpaths wherever possible—and I think it is very often possible. This is one of the matters in which the Ministry of Transport does not use its imagination as it should. Footpaths might be put behind hedges instead of next to the road, which would obviate the necessity for kerbs and would help to reduce the danger of accidents.
The great principle of accident reduction ought to be the segregation of different kinds of traffic, and, above all, the segregation of the motor vehicle, which is no longer a carriage but a kind of minor railway train, from the cyclist and the pedestrian. That means the development, again at no great cost, of the cycle path and the pedestrian footpath set away from the road.
I should like to add a word on the Forth Bridge, because I hold strong views about this. I am glad of what the Government have already held out to us. I am convinced that it will be an immensely sound economic proposition. When these great long detours are avoided, there will be a saving in petrol, oil, rubber, drivers' time, the use and the number of vehicles on the road, which is very difficult to compute.
There is a figure which I believe is familiar to some people. In any case, I shall repeat it because it ought to be familiar to the country as a whole. The London Passenger Transport Board calculated not very long ago that the average speed of their vehicles in the London area is 11·2 m.p.h., and it was said that if the speed could be raised by 1m.p.h. to 12·2 m.p.h. £2 million a year would be saved and there would be a considerable reduction in the number of vehicles which now encumber the London streets.
That figure is illustrative of what can be done elsewhere, and anything like the Forth Bridge which will produce a great economy of the sort which I have described is a good economic proposition for the Government. I give my fullest support to what the two hon. Members have said.

1.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): We have had a short but extremely practical and useful discussion upon some of the road problems of Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) has said, many of these problems apply also to England, and some of the things which I am saying will be applicable equally to this part of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend first referred to lay-bys, He has been asking most pertinaciously a number of questions of my right hon. Friend upon that subject, and it may therefore be possible for me to confine my reply to him to a very few words. As my right hon. Friend has said in reply to an English hon. Member, it is our policy
to provide lay-bys at reasonable intervals on trunk roads to enable vehicles using the roads to stand out of the main stream of traffic for relatively short periods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 51.]
I entirely agree with what has been said about the large number of road accidents which are due to vehicles stopping on a busy and congested road, and especially a trunk road, where fairly high speeds are attained. We intend to encourage the provisions of these lay-bys. We agree with a good many of the points which my hon. Friend has made, although we are doubtful about the light construction which he recommended. In fact, when one is constructing a road it does not cost a great deal more to carry on with the same construction in the lay-by. The main cost, of course, is that of acquiring the land. We think, also, that in many cases very heavy, laden vehicles will be standing for long periods on the lay-bys and, generally speaking, it is, therefore, important that they should be constructed as solidly as the roadway itself.
We are rather doubtful about using lay-bys for bus stops. It is obvious that the same lay-by cannot, at the same time, be effectively used by a bus stopping there and by vehicles parking there. Generally speaking, we feel that lay-bys are not so desirable close to centres of population as they are out in the country. We take into account that where there is a parking place at, say, a transport cafe, there is not generally the same demand for a lay-by.


Therefore, we think that they are important at considerable distances from towns, where they are needed for the necessary rest of the lorry drivers. These are comparatively small points, but I mention them so that my hon. Friend shall realise that the Ministry of Transport is giving careful consideration to the provision of lay-bys, and entirely agrees with all that has been said on both sides of the House about their great importance.
I am very glad to be able to say something about kerbs. It was in October, 1954, within two months of taking up his present responsibilities, that my right hon. Friend appointed a small committee inside the Ministry of Transport to inquire into the whole question of these kerbs. There has been a good deal of general criticism and some misunderstanding of the purpose of kerbs. Kerbs beside roads are important for two purposes—first, as an indication of where the edge of the road is, and, secondly, to prevent the haunch of the road from being broken away and crumbling as the result of great weights coming upon it where there is no lateral pressure to help to support it.
The kerb can be of immense value to the motorist, and, at the same time, it can be a danger. It helps the motorist where it indicates the edge of the carriageway, because there are many cases where the motorist will get into difficulty and, indeed, into danger if he runs off on to a soft verge. There are, of course, cases where he wants to be able to go over on to the soft verge, and in a moment of crisis it may even be the only way of avoiding an accident. There are other cases where it is not necessary to go over and where getting on to a verge may cause an accident which would not otherwise have occurred. We are, therefore, recommending in a new circular, dated 19th July—which we are sending out for general guidance—a slightly modified policy with regard to kerbs.
Kerbs are of three kinds. First, there is the vertical kerb. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and we are asking that this type should be used only where it is extremely important that the vehicles shall not go over the edge. That will be where there is a footpath and where, if the vehicle goes over the kerb, a pedestrian accident may result. It is also necessary where there is a precipice

and in other cases where it is necessary to avoid the vehicle going over. Where it is not necessary, we fully accept the disadvantages of the vertical kerb. If a car is travelling at high speed and strikes the vertical type it may bounce into the other line of traffic and there may be an accident. The vertical kerb, therefore, should be used only where there is definitely a safety consideration that makes it essential.
In rural areas, in particular, it is rare that anything more is required than a flush kerb, and that is what we normally recommend. That is one which indicates, especially at night, where the edge of the road comes. It is, therefore, of value for safety purposes and it is just as effective as the vertical kerb for strengthening the haunch of the road—and that is extremely important for reducing the cost of maintenance over a large number of years. In normal circumstances, it is the flush kerb that we are recommending in Memorandum 715.
There are intermediate cases, however, where a splayed kerb is justified. That will enable a vehicle, in the moment of crisis, actually to go over the kerb and obtain some measure of safety on the verge, while at the same time it discourages the vehicle from doing so unnecessarily. There are, unfortunately, many cases where the verge of the road is very seriously damaged by a quite unnecessary and wanton use of it by cars which go on to it and cause ruts.
I have been very glad to point out that this is a matter which has been exercising our minds in the Ministry of Transport for a long time. I hope that the general policy laid down in Memorandum 715 will commend itself to the House and to the country as being a practical and sensible way of dealing with the problem.
It was only in the last few moments of his speech that my hon. Friend spoke about the width of traffic lanes. As the House is aware, we have recently authorised wider vehicles to be used upon the roads. Since the war, all road planning has been based on Memorandum 575, but with the advent of the extra wide vehicle now authorised at 8 ft., with an overhang of the cargo or load carried of not more than 1ft. 6 in., it is obvious that a wider lane is now desirable.
The Minister has been thinking over the question of standards to be adopted in the design of trunk roads for the future and has sought the advice of the Road Research Laboratory. He considers that, in future, the design of trunk roads should be based on 12 ft. traffic lanes. That will be the general standard for the future, but it cannot usually be applied to roads already planned. There may also be exceptional cases where other dimensions will be adopted owing to special circumstances.
I hope that that statement will also be acceptable to my hon. Friend, and also to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), for whose intervention I am grateful. I think it will show that we intend to take advantage of the new and expanded roads programme to ensure that the roads of the future shall be more commensurate with the heavy task which the perpetual increase in the volume of traffic requires.
I should not like to sit down without referring to the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I had no notice that he intended to raise it. I would only say that the announcement made by my right hon. Friend yesterday is an expansion of what was announced on 2nd February for Scotland as well as for England and Wales, and that we have made certain that Scotland's proportion is substantially more than would be provided by the Goschen formula which, I know, would be unacceptable to Scots. That is why, in our earnest desire to meet them, we have ensured that Scotland has a larger proportion of expenditure, and I can honestly say that I think that Scotland has been treated not ungenerously in this respect.

Mr. Willis: I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to reply now to the smaller points which I raised, but would he let me have a reply to them later?

Mr. Molson: I shall certainly take great pleasure in writing to the hon. Member about them.

ANGLO-CANADIAN TRADE

1.47 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The subject matter of my Adjournment Debate is really a continuation of the economic debate which we had earlier in the week. What the subject of trade with Canada does is, I think, to stress its importance as a means of overcoming our economic difficulties. Canada belongs to the dollar area group of countries; we are the leaders of the sterling area countries. Because of the disequilibrium in the dollar position we can, together, do something to overcome those difficulties—our economies are complementary.
It is very disturbing to find that trade with Canada is on the decline. The Canadians themselves must be disturbed, because last year they fell from third position to fourth of the largest trading nations in the world. As we know, our own country has declined in relative importance as a market for Canadian exports, and certainly as a source of supply of Canadian imports and capital goods. We are all compelled to recognise that gone are the days of the triangular pattern of trade, when the United States of America bought wool, tin, rubber and jute from the sterling area and we spent in Canada the dollars so earned.
We find now that there are substitutes or alternative markets. Man-made fibres are taking the place of natural wool; synthetic rubber is replacing the natural product, and America is buying Bolivian tin and not so much from Malaya. There is no doubt that things are changing, and that, however much we may desire to return to that triangular pattern, we may find it difficult to do so.
We must also recognise that the United States of America have tremendous advantages in trading with Canada—their geographical position and their financial and business ties—but we should not let that be the determining factor. Many of those things have presented difficulties before, but we have managed to overcome them. If we take the pre-war triangular pattern of trade, Canadian exports to the United Kingdom in the period 1920 to 1939 averaged 35·8 per cent. and Canadian imports from the United


Kingdom in the same period averaged 17·5 per cent., the difference being met by the dollars earned in the way I outlined as a result of the triangular pattern of trade.
After the war we had no alternative but to get from Canada goods not available elsewhere. In 1946, we imported from Canada 25·8 per cent. of the goods. Because we were not able to balance our trade, the Government of the day had to decide to cut Canadian imports and, by 1950, they had been cut to 15 per cent., but since 1950 imports have been rising, I think about 1 per cent. on an average each year. That would not be so bad if we were exporting more to Canada, but the figures show that it is otherwise. Whereas exports to Canada in 1946 were 7·6 per cent., and by energetic export drives were pushed up to 12·7 per cent. in 1950, last year the figure fell to 9·6 per cent.
Facing that situation, which puts us into greater difficulties and, in my view, puts the Canadians into difficulties—we are falling far short of the average share of the Canadian market compared with pre-war. I think we are entitled to ask, "Are we doing enough?" Successive Governments, including the present, have tried to make trading conditions easier. There were the Export Guarantees Acts of 1949 and 1952, and by credit facilities and other kinds of help we did what we could to encourage other exporters to the Canadian market and to help those exporters already in that market to increase their level of exports.
I think we are entitled to ask whether industry has responded. Some sections of industry have done a good job, including the electrical industry and the motor vehicle industry. I always have some reservations about the motor industry. The Minister will be aware that on occasion I have expressed the view that by pushing the sale of cars into America we would have a short-term market, but, that, if ever there were a recession in the United States, the Americans would do one of two things. Either they would not buy a second car, a smaller car to help them out for the time being, or, if they found the smaller car more popular, American manufacturers would soon tool up and go over to a manufacture which would compete with us.
That is not the position in Canada, where there is a long-term market. The

emphasis should be on motor car exports to Canada, and with all the things the motor industry very efficiently carries out we should make sure that, having been established in that market, we keep there. I make the suggestion particularly in reference to Canada because on long-term trade it is the best investment, and also in view of the economic debate we have had and because of the need to avoid importing steel which, in some cases, costs dollars. We do not want to waste steel on a market which would not be there for a long time to come.
In reference to trade generally, I had the experience in April of lunching with a Canadian business team over here. The experience was revealing in many ways. Sitting next to me was a Canadian, who asked for a glass of cider. It was most interesting that he should want cider. He said, "In our local stores we had some cider from the United Kingdom. I tried it and found it very good. All my friends liked it, but we could not get any more." When anyone has shown sufficient enterprise to get into a market like that and then to lose the market, it seems to be falling short of the standards required if we are to push trade in that country.
Another comment made at the lunch was that the Canadians would like nothing more than to have our soft fruits, such as raspberries and strawberries, imported by deep-freezing methods. Having in mind that often the Government are criticised for not putting on import restrictions here, that is a way in which we could help our soft fruit industry by encouraging it to export to Canada.
These Canadians also took the opportunity of telling me that Canada is still primarily a food producing country. They said that food would be one of the most important items of production. They recognised that world population was growing and standards of living were higher. Therefore, food in particular would be required in increasing amounts. They said that in this respect we had not tackled their agricultural markets and suggested that we should not think only of tractors, although by all means we should push them, but also of other aids, equipment and mechanical devices for agriculture, mentioning such things as machines for killing weeds and pests. The Canadians would like to see


British products on their farms and also wanted prefabricated storage units, because British units of that kind could compete with the rest of the world. I know of one firm which is doing fairly well in that respect.
The Canadians have a great building programme and complained that it was impossible to buy such accessories as baths, basins and household fittings because each firm to which they went replied that the order books were full. However full order books might be, we ought to impress upon industry that trade with Canada is vital. The Canadians made the familiar cry for steel. I am bound to ask whether British firms tender. Just recently the Germans got the tender for the great St. Lawrence Waterway project, but British steel is lower in price. Does the Board of Trade put a restriction on the steel producers? Are they not allowed to export all they wish? If so, does the Board of Trade give any guidance about where exports ought to be sent? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can find out whether there is complete freedom to use steel required for the home market. Is it used for essential industry or in frivolous ways which will not help our economy?
Some firms have been put off by the Canadian anti-monopoly laws. British glass manufacturers who secured good orders were heavily fined for infringing Canadian anti-monopoly laws. Following the debate a short time ago, perhaps new Government legislation may help in that respect. I think that Canadians are as aware as any of us that this new pattern of trade means that we cannot buy goods from their country unless we earn dollars to pay for them by goods and services to Canada. I think they are anxious to buy.
Perhaps the most condemning comment I can make is that quite recently a business man, anxious to push trade with Canada, showed me a letter from which I will quote. It said:
The board has made a definite decision that they will not entertain any outlay of capital prior to the receipt of actual orders.
We are never going to do trade if we sit at home and hope that orders will be sent to this country. That attitude is wrong. The Canadians are anxious to trade with us and we should be equally anxious to trade with them. I recall that the Prime

Minister who served for a longer period than any other Prime Minister in the British Commonwealth, Mr. Mackenzie King, once said:
It is strongly in our interests to encourage imports of British goods into Canada.
That has been confirmed and reiterated by the present Canadian Minister of Commerce, who also is a good friend of our country and anxious for trade to develop. It is a fact, which I suppose we have to face, that for much of our exports we are compelled to depend on our older industries, but in that respect we have to concentrate on quality goods.
We can remind ourselves that at one time Canada took almost all her textile requirements from the United Kingdom. That is not so today. It is worth reflecting that a hundred years ago the textile industries accounted for two-thirds of our total world export trade. The pattern of trade has certainly changed. Canada is now developing her own textile and consumer goods industries and finds within her territory oil, natural gas and minerals, including uranium. Canada is seeking means of developing these resources and needs cheap power by means of hydro-electricity, thermal or atomic methods. We ought to concentrate upon seeing whether we can get into Canada's markets to sell these capital goods in greater measure than we are doing at present.
We ought also to concentrate upon making Canada entirely dependent upon us for jet engines, whether for aircraft or other processes. We should exploit the lead that we possess in this great industry. Forty years ago, nobody would have believed that the developing motor car industry would today become three times as important in world trade as railways and shipping combined. We must remember that we are entering the age of automation.
I urge the Government, therefore, to give directions to industry as a whole to concentrate upon supplying the needs of the producer. If we were to do this, the producer would come to us for the machines and equipment that he required and it would be firmly established that we were the suppliers of those needs. There is no reason why we should not play a leading part in the modern industrial development of the world as we did in the world's earlier development. We should


not simply regard our trade policies as being concerned with redistributing a static or limited volume of business alone. We have the heritage of the oldest industrial nation in the world and we should exploit to the full our technical skill, our mechanical inventiveness and our experience.
It is most important that the business man should study intensively the industrial needs, tastes and preferences of buyers. He must know whether his goods are of the right kind and he should know how to make them better than his competitors. In addition, he ought to be able to gain the benefits of market research. Perhaps, in this connection, the Minister can say what the Board of Trade is doing. I recall that in 1948, when I was at the Board of Trade, we issued a handbook, "Guide to Business Men Going to Canada." I was told at the time that it was extremely useful. Is this being kept up to date? What is done about bringing home to business men, not only the need to export to Canada, but the difficulties and how they can be overcome? Perhaps the Minister will also tell us a little about the Dollar Exports Board and its counterpart, the Canadian Board. These two bodies together have done some extremely valuable work and I only hope that they are continuing to do so.
What is quite apparent, however, is that far too many of our manufacturers are busily occupied for other and easier markets. If they continue to do this, we shall not be able as a country to exist as successfully as we all wish. We should all be very alarmed at the fall in trade with Canada. Not long ago, Canada had to protest to the United States that it was restricting the import of dairy produce and other goods from Canada and was giving away to needy nations part of its surplus of dairy produce and wheat. This was damaging to the Canadian economy. I think that the United States would themselves welcome an extension of this trade. It knows that if the United Kingdom and Canada have viable economies, they are enabled fully to share common security burdens, thus relieving the United States taxpayer and strengthening Western defence.
I should like to give another set of figures to emphasise the importance of trade with Canada. In the period from 1949 to 1952, our exports to the United

States were £521·2 million. Exports to Canada during the same period were 479·6 million. A rough calculation shows that on a per capita basis Canada bought ten times more than the United States. I know that it is difficult to sell to Canada but I would say that in the long-term it is the best possible market. At any rate, it is encouraging to know that if we can sell in Canada, we can sell anywhere in the world.
The Canadian market is wide open for British goods. We are all agreed upon the necessity of developing this trade. The fundamental difference between the two sides of the House is that we on this side feel that it can be achieved only by planning and economic control. We think that there should be discrimination in investment and imports and that we should concentrate upon our export trade.
I believe that as a result of my journey to Northern Ireland with two of my colleagues—the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—to study trade and industry, the Government contemplate appointing a well-known person to help in this direction. I ask the Government to consider one of their own friends and supporters, one who has as many ties with Canada as with this country. Let the Government ask him to take over the drive for trade with Canada, for I believe that he could do it with some measure of success. I commend to the Government the name of Lord Beaverbrook.

2.6 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: In discussing the problem of trade with Canada, we have an opportunity of dwelling for a few moments on the problem that I tried to discuss this morning; namely, American investment in the British Commonwealth and Colonial Territories and, indeed, in our own country.
We are discussing the vast problem of British trade with a part of the Commonwealth which is outside the sterling area and which is rapidly coming under the control of American finance capital. I suppose that there are few countries closely linked with Britain which have greater possibility for economic development than Canada. Canada possesses coal, oil, timber and fertile lands. It is a


vast area with tremendous possibilities for supplying Britain—the Metropolis—with many of the raw materials which today we import from the United States of America.
Nevertheless, it is strange but true that hon. Members opposite seem to go out of their way to encourage American investment into Canada and into its basic industries—in chemicals, in mining and in the paper and oil industries. We should not overlook the fact that, in spite of the mighty contribution made by America to the recovery of Europe and of the world, many of these investments have political commitments and economic limitations on this House, and on British industry and on the policy of the Commonwealth Governments.
Literally thousands of millions of American dollars are invested in Canada. For some reason or other, we fail to find the risk capital needed to develop the natural resources of this wealthy Dominion which is so closely linked with Britain. It seems to me that one of the major tasks of the present Government—of any British Government—is to guarantee that these vast undeveloped areas of the British Commonwealth should be developed with British capital and should not be allowed to become an extension of American monopoly finance capital.
This morning, at Question Time, I was trying to obtain from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury an estimate of how much American capital was invested in British Colonies and other territories over which we have some control. There was, however, a complete absence of information. But from a country like Canada it should be possible for us to collect information regularly about the flow there of American investment. It seems to me that we shall live to regret this attempt to encourage American capital investment in Britain, in the Commonwealth and in the Colonial Territories.
It seems to me that America is getting control of the economy and the vast natural resources of the Commonwealth and the world at a very cheap rate indeed. For example, a few years ago Australia needed dollars for capital equipment. After some discussion, 100 million dollars was made available. In Australia, however, there is a £5,000 million British investment. Yet this very small American

investment gives the Americans vast political and economic control which completely overshadows the help which traditionally Britain has given to Australia and, indeed, to other countries similarly placed.
The same situation obtains in Canada. It seems to me that it is quite impossible to develop the free flow of trade between Britain and Canada while there is that regular, increasing flow of very substantial American capital investment in all the basic industries of Canada. Automatically, Canada is being closely linked with the American economy. The American tariff system makes it impossible for British industry to plan long-term trade in the American markets. If Canada becomes too closely linked with the economy of America, a similar tariff system will develop there which, with the passing of time, will make very difficult the export of British manufactured goods to Canada, and, indeed, to other important parts of the British Commonwealth.
I notice that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who is to reply to my right hon. Friend, is looking at the clock. I do not want to be an awkward customer, so I shall conclude my remarks. I wanted only to take this opportunity to develop a small matter I tried to develop at Question Time this morning, and I hope I may be excused for having done so in a debate on Canadian trade. It is, however, closely linked with the question of American investment in the British Commonwealth.

2.13 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I apologise to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) if I caused him to think I wanted him to stop prematurely making his interesting speech. I am sure that he is right in pointing to the importance of investment and to the importance of American investment in Canada. I heard him develop his argument earlier today. I think that sometimes he overlooks the tremendous contribution to the development of the world and to the security of the world that has been made by American investment, especially since the war.

Mr. R. Edwards: No. I mentioned it.

Mr. Low: The way to deal with it—and I think that this is the hon. Member's


point of view, too—is not to stop American investment but to increase British investment in the Commonwealth, especially in Canada. There is, of course, a great deal of British capital in Canada, and in recent years British capital has been flowing there, especially into projects which directly or indirectly might help our export trade. Certainly, we attach importance to British investment in Canada and in other parts of the Commonwealth, and if we are to invest more we have to earn more and to save more. It is with that aspect of our trade with Canada that I want to deal.
I very much welcome the debate which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), one of my predecessors at the Board of Trade, has initiated. I also welcome the tenor of his speech. From time to time he laid emphasis, as, I am sure, he was right to do, on the importance of taking advantage of new ideas and of our skill, inventiveness, and experience. He laid emphasis, too, on the tremendous opportunities there are in that great, developing market. I shall recur to that theme, but I am sure he was right to emphasise those things.
I think that any of us who have been studying the figures of our exports to Canada in recent months must have been concerned—I certainly was concerned—at the fact that they reveal a fall in our exports last year. That concern has increased in the last few months, as the figures for the early part of 1955 show that our exports to Canada, far from recovering, have fallen still further. There was an exception in May. May was a good month, and that may be a good portent, but, owing to the interruption of our export trade by the dock strike, we cannot tell yet whether that was just a temporary improvement for one month or whether it was the start of a new trend. We have to wait and see.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us some statistics. I am sure he was right in saying what I would emphasise, that the figures and percentages we talk about draw a general picture but hide alike the fact that certain firms in certain industries have been and are still doing very well —firms dealing in chemicals, pottery, aircraft, heavy electrical plant and tractors—and the fact that certain other industries which had been doing quite

well in 1952 and 1953 have, for one reason or another, lost a part of their trade. I am thinking particularly of motor cars, wool textiles and machine tools. The right hon. Gentleman said something about motor cars. Our trade to Canada in motor cars is very important and has been pushed with great skill, enthusiasm, and energy. That trade has met some difficulties in the last eighteen months, and we had made a special study of the problem, which we are considering, and which is also being considered by responsible bodies in industry.
The important statistics, I think, are these. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to concentrate on our share of Canada's total imports. The United Kingdom's share of those imports in the last three years has been thus: in 1952 just under 9 per cent.; in 1953 it rose to 10·3 per cent.; in 1954 it began to fall and went down to 9·6 per cent.; for the first quarter of this year, the latest period for which we have the figures for Canadian trade, it fell still further to 8·6 per cent.
It would appear from studying the figures that in recent months it has been the United States which has been gaining from us, and, indeed, from other countries, too, but last year it was the Germans and not the Americans—Germany and some other countries—who gained the part of the market that we lost. Those are the first statistics.
The second are of United Kingdom exports to Canada as a percentage of total United Kingdom exports. They are interesting figures at a time when our exports have been rising generally. In 1953, the percentage was 6·1, but by 1954, when, of course, total exports had risen and were considerably higher than those for 1953, the percentage was 4·9. For the first half of 1955 the percentage has fallen still further to 4·4. Other statistics concern engineering exports, which are so important to the total volume of our exports to the world as a whole. Taking engineering exports to Canada separately, we find that our share of Canada's total imports of engineering goods, other than non-ferrous products, was 10·5 per cent. in 1953 and had fallen to 6·8 per cent. in the first quarter of 1955. That is an important and rather disquieting fall.
There is, however, one important fact to be borne in mind when we consider the statistics. It is the recession which took place in Canada and the United States last year. That in Canada particularly affected our two major exports to her—wool textiles and motor cars. Because it affected those things particularly and they are major exports it has, of course, affected the percentages in the statistics. Canada is now coming out of that recession and we hope that as the months go on we shall recover and indeed further increase our trade with Canada in these important products. The recession in the United States also had an effect on our position in the Canadian market, United States manufactures being pushed on the Canadian market at shorter delivery dates and lower prices than normal. That factor, too, is no longer present.
A disquieting conclusion which one must draw from the statistics and the facts that I have mentioned is that our share of the Canadian market has become smaller and our total exports to Canada have dropped during a period when production at home in Britain was rising and our exports generally were rising. There is the further point that our exports have not yet recovered this year as Canadian demand has increased. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham was quite right in stressing the reasons for the importance of our trade with Canada. It cannot be overemphasised. By it we earn dollars to pay for the food and raw materials which we must obtain from Canada and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, our economies are complementary.
The fact that Canada is the senior member of the Commonwealth next to us has always, and surely will always, encourage trade between us both ways. The Canadian market is important in another way, to which the right hon. Member referred. It is certainly a highly competitive market, but it is a market that is not ringed round with quota restrictions, or with fears of quota restrictions, or with very high tariffs, and everyone knows of the new opportunities for expansion which are opening up almost every month there.
I said that it was a highly competitive market. The main competition comes from the United States and from growing Canadian industries, too, but there

are many examples in recent years, and indeed in recent months, of British firms, large and small, meeting this competition and winning through. Success certainly may take time, as it does in a competitive market. It may involve alteration in design, new advertising and sales promotion methods, and even new methods of distribution. It almost certainly will involve personal attention from top management and even chairmen themselves. But there is no doubt that, as several firms have found, all this effort is very well worth while not only in the broad national interest but even in the individual interest of the firm concerned
The best chance, of course, is in quality goods, in goods which reflect the skill and inventiveness of this island. There is also a fine chance for new ideas. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham referred to the raspberry man. We have heard from the raspberry man and we are now trying to help. The Canadians also recognise that our exports are important to them. They realise that the sales of agricultural products, raw materials, and canned fish and other things which they wish to sell to us can be paid for only if we earn dollars from them and from other places in the dollar area.
In recent years our exports to Canada have earned only about half of our imports from Canada. It would be wrong indeed impracticable, to consider operating our trade with Canada on a narrow bilateral basis. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was advocating that. He said that the triangular pattern of trade had gone. I think that it was more quadrilateral. I very much doubt whether it has gone altogether, though certainly it has been affected by changes in recent years. Canada is part of the dollar area and our imports from that country are financed by earning dollars or gold not just from Canada but from other countries as well, and by what other countries in the sterling area may also earn. Though it would be quite wrong to be narrowly bilateral it must be remembered that the more we sell to Canada the more we can afford to buy from her. That is a point on which we are in complete agreement.
That is the general position. What can the Government do? First, there is


general economic policy. We have discussed in the House the importance to our exports generally of the general economic climate and I have nothing to add to what has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others in our debates. Obviously that is particularly important to exports to competitive markets like Canada. Then there is our general trade and commercial policy and its effect upon our trade with Canada. Our general approach to the search for greater freedom of trade and payments in the world is an approach in which we are in complete agreement with the Government of Canada.
I should have thought that that policy clearly helps and does not hinder British exports to Canada. I thought that the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham was digging around at the end of his speech for a point on which he could disagree with this side of the House. He pointed to the importance of controls, but I cannot see how controls can help our exports to Canada and I think that it is a very good thing that we share with the Canadian Government a desire to see a freer system of trade and payments throughout the world.
There is also the point about the import restrictions which we have had to impose on dollar goods, including Canadian goods, for reasons of balance of payments. There have been important relaxations even in the last year. These have helped our economy generally, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in the course of his speech on Tuesday, and, of course, we are anxious to help our Canadian friends, as soon as we can afford to do so, to increase their exports to us. Obviously, we cannot go too far or too fast in view of the balance of payments position between ourselves and the dollar area.
The third point, on which I want to concentrate, relates to information. Are we doing all we can to ensure, on the one hand, that Canadian business men are aware of the goods which Britain can supply and to ensure, on the other hand, that British business men are aware of the opportunities that are open to them in Canada? What can be done?
First, there is the Trade Commissioner service, about which the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham knows as much as I do. In Canada, that service has recently been reinforced. In

the last year, four new posts have been established and I am sure that that will help. In addition, we are establishing two new information posts in Montreal and Toronto in the near future. A constant stream of information about markets goes out from the Board of Trade and we have made special arrangements recently for our regional controllers in the provinces to pay particular attention to Canada. There are also arrangements, when the Trade Commissioners come back from Canada on leave or on duty, to make visits to important centres of industry in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the handbook. He will be glad to hear it has been brought up to date and a new edition has recently been published.
I regard the provision of information as one of the best ways in which we in the Government can help in this problem. It is not only a question of disseminating information, but trying to ensure that we have the right information and the latest news about problems facing British manufacturers selling in Canada. With this in mind I have been in contact with the Commercial Counsellor in London and the Agents General of the Canadian Provinces and have discussed the matter with some Canadian business men who have been making visits here. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a case where he had a talk with a Canadian business man at lunch and found it valuable. I am sure that that sort of thing is valuable to all of us.
He asked me about the Dollar Exports Council and that is a most important body which can and does do so much to help in this matter. It has a new plan to boost interest in British industry in Canada, and work will be started on the new plan shortly after the summer holidays. It is a most valuable body and it owes much for its effectiveness to the energy, inspiration and great experience of the Chairman, Sir William Rootes. Without making comparisons which might be odious I do not think that we need call upon Lord Beaverbrook in this matter. We are very fortunate to have Sir William Rootes, with his knowledge of selling all over the world and his particular knowledge of the dollar market. I know that he and his colleagues are enthusiastic believers in the importance of trade with Canada and will help us spread


that enthusiasm through the trade associations down to the individual firms.
They have been doing a lot of things. They have been arranging missions and others have been appointed without their initiative. Important missions have come from Canadian industry to make purchases here, like that from the Vancouver Board of Trade to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. These are very valuable things, and so is the counterpart of British business men going to Canada, because that is the best way of finding out what opportunity there is in Canada. Anything we can do to encourage visits by British business men we will do.
There are also visits by British Ministers. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made an important visit last year. It was well worth while and most valuable. I am sure there will be other visits, and I believe I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman himself is making a visit in December. I am sure he will help in this matter by his knowledge of the problems.
We also depend on the Press for ensuring that there is a wide coverage of important news and views about what is going on in Canadian industry. Good reports by reliable reporters can be every bit as valuable from day to day as the special reports which we try to disseminate.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned export credits. I think he is aware that we do provide special facilities for those who wish to start up anew in Canada. E.C.G.D. provide insurance against losses which may arise at any time in connection with an exporter's entry into dollar markets and insurance against risks at the stages of exploring the market, developing it, servicing it and supplying it. I would advise any exporter trying to get into the Canadian market to find

out about the services E.C.G.D. can offer either from the Department Headquarters in London or from any of its twelve branches in the provinces.
Those are some of the things that the Government can do. We are certainly enthusiastic to help in any way we can, but, of course, ultimately it is for the British industrialist, the individual manufacturer or the trader to get into the market, see what it is like, work out a plan, and make it a success. There have been some successes. I have reminded the House of some of the individual successes by manufacturers. I have got in mind the contract for a submarine cable which is to be laid between Vancouver and Vancouver Island, a unique engineering feat. I met a man the other day from Canada who came here to see how things were going on about that and he was very pleased at what had been done.
Then, of course, there is the great success of our aircraft industry. It is good to know that both the main Canadian airlines are ordering new British planes. In the electrical plant field there are several cases of recent contracts won by British industry against fierce competition, one of the most important being the transformers for the new Niagara power station. Last, but by no means least, there are the very valuable contracts which have been obtained recently by civil engineering contractors amounting to more than 20 million dollars worth last year. As well as the big firms there are the small firms, and we must not overlook their success. We would not do so if we visited the stores in Canadian cities.
That is the position and I see no reason to be gloomy. I see every reason to stress the importance from the nation's point of view and from industry's point of view, of this expanding market, a market in which, as I have said, there is no fear of import restrictions.

BROOKS AND WATER- COURSES (CLEANSING)

2.39 p.m.

Mr. John Baldock: I have taken this opportunity to address the House on the subject of the cleansing of brooks and watercourses because I believe it to be a matter which both the House and the Ministers concerned will find requires more urgent attention than it is receiving now. It has been brought to my notice by one case in my constituency which I think very well exemplifies what is going on in hundreds and probably thousands of villages all over the country. They are suffering regularly year by year from damage through flooding.
It is true that the result of the flooding which occurs through these brooks and watercourses is not so dramatic, dangerous or damaging as when a sea-wall is breached and land is inundated or a major disaster of that kind arises. If the House contemplates the position of every area where hundreds and probably thousands of villages and houses are flooded regularly year by year, it will be seen that it adds up to a considerable amount of damage, destruction and danger to health. It is to my mind remarkable that in a highly integrated and organised society such as ours this situation is permitted to continue year after year. It is time that action was taken.
If I could instance the case which draws attention to the most important aspects of the situation, it is that of a brook at a small village in my constituency called Cosby. I was asked by the parish council to do what I could to help them to have the brook cleared out. It is a typical stream running through a village, and at one time it was well kept and was an asset to the appearance of the village, as well as carrying away the surplus water. Now it is silted up, full of weeds, muck and tin cans and other debris which anyone may happen to throw into it or which may be carried down by the water. The problem is that it is not the responsibility of anyone to clean it out.
For two and a half years now the Parliamentary Secretary and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), and myself have been battling

with this problem together with the local authorities concerned. It seems to me tragic that we have completely wasted our time. Probably it is difficult to make progress without legislation, but I hope to suggest a way in which perhaps some more immediate relief might be afforded.
The basic situation was that if this stream could be regarded as part of the main river of the Trent, into which eventually it runs, the Trent River Board could be held responsible for cleansing it. It is hard to say, however, what is the main river and what is not. There appears to be no definite demarcation line, and conversations and discussions have not been successful in getting the Trent River Board to take responsibility for this stream or for several others like it which have exactly the same effect of flooding their surroundings every winter.
The other possibility seems to be that the rural district council concerned might be able to cleanse it, but it is only permitted to do so, and the district auditor would only allow the charge to go through, if the stream has reached the stage of being a statutory nuisance. On taking counsel's opinion the Rural District Councils' Association has been told that this amounts to a situation in which disease is likely to break out immediately, or possibly has broken out already; in fact, the position must be one of considerable severity.
Ordinary flooding and permanent danger of flooding, the unattractive appearance of the brook and the annoyance to the villagers are not regarded as constituting a statutory nuisance. Therefore the local authority does not feel that it could embark upon cleansing the brook without running the risk of having the charge disallowed and surcharged by the district auditor.
That is how the matter has gone. We started with the Trent River Board, who turned it down. We investigated the possibility of it being regarded as a nuisance and, after advice was taken, that was turned down. We have gone back to the river board, which again has turned it down, and we are back to the district auditor. It is like a dog chasing its tail. We have done this for two and a half years and there is no limit to the time we could go on, while we still have breath and energy left to chase our tails, and so long as there are Ministers in the


Department and hon. Members representing this constituency.
While this problem is high-lighted by the village in the case we have been pursuing, it also applies in exactly the same way to a number of other villages, Whetstone, Blaby, and Glenfield, in the same rural district. In another part of my constituency where the Welland River Board would be responsible if these streams were regarded as main rivers, over on the Market Harborough side, we have much the same situation. The village of Lubenham regularly has floods when there is heavy rainfall. It is not only an exceptional winter like last year which brings on this flooding; it is a regular annual event and takes place even in the summer when there is heavy rainfall. It also occurs in Little Bowden, where the Jordan runs into the Welland.
Nobody knows where the responsibility for the River Jordan lies, as it is apparently not the responsibility of the Welland River Board. From lower down at Medbourne, where flooding occurs regularly, only last week I had a letter from an old lady who said, among other things:
My cottage was flooded three times last winter, causing me great distress, damage and loss…I am 77 years of age and live alone, and was compelled to have medical help for shock.
This kind of thing can be multiplied over and over again, and the instances I have quoted from my own constituency probably occur in nearly every other rural constituency.
It is the case that the Heneage Report was issued in 1951 to the Ministry of Agriculture, and that recommendations were made for dealing with all these problems. The first, and I suppose in this instance the most relevant, recommendation was that the responsibility for watercourses should lie with river boards. If that recommendation were adopted it would mean that every brook and stream would come under the board of the main river into which it eventually runs. In that way the difficulty of deciding where the main river ends and some tributary starts would be overcome, and that would be a move in the right direction. Unfortunately, it requires legislation.
We come back to the point of what can be done at the present moment. The

previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing summed it up in this way over a year ago:
There is no drainage board responsible for this brook, nor is it a 'main river' for which the River Trent Board would be responsible. This question of the maintenance of small water courses arises in many places, where the work cannot be tackled by riparian owners, and I am afraid the existing law does not place clear responsibilities on any authority to carry out the maintenance work. In the absence of new legislation, the problem is a difficult one.
I believe that the House and the Minister would not want to leave the matter where it is and where it would appear to have to lie at the present time. I hope that the district auditors can be prevailed upon by the Minister—I am not sure how great his powers are in this case—to interpret the expression "nuisance" in a more commonsense and wider way than is being done at the present time.
If we were able to interpret as a "nuisance" regular flooding—and by any commonsense interpretation of the word it does constitute a nuisance if people's homes are regularly damaged year by year—then the local authority could do something about it. Most of the local authorities want to do something about it. They do not want to see the houses of their ratepayers and citizens regularly damaged, and frequently their own council houses inundated, in this way year by year. They are anxious to help, but they are blocked by this one word "nuisance." Is it possible, therefore, for the Minister of Housing to send a circular, or in any other way to communicate with district auditors, asking them to interpret the word "nuisance" a little more widely? If so, the considerable suffering, damage, inconvenience and inefficiency—because it is remarkably inefficient to tolerate this—which is going on year by year could be overcome until a more permanent and effective solution could be found.

2.48 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I am glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock), even briefly, in his plea to the Minister for some guidance or even a decision in this matter. Though not a fascinating subject, it is an important one, and it is certainly an involved one. I confess to some sympathy with the Minister when he replies. I, like my


hon. Friend, have also been subjected to a "passing of the buck" from one local authority to another and back to the Ministry, and the Minister would greatly assist house owners affected by flooding, as well as local authorities, if he would give guidance, and more especially decision, to local authorities on this subject.
Some of my constituents in the Borough of Wembley are affected by periodic flooding of otherwise small streams when rainfall is only slightly above normal. I have been in communication with the Minister during the past eight months, and I should be grateful if the proceedings could be speeded up. I know it is an involved problem, but need we take so long in reaching a solution?
One affected constituent of mine complains that after flooding a thick, black sludge is left behind and there is a potential danger to health, especially to the health of her young children. That is confirmed by the local medical officer of health. Because her garden is at a low level compared with others nearby, the town clerk suggests that as riparian owner she might carry out protective work but, "he hesitates to advise the raising of the level of the garden if the result is likely to cause neighbouring land to be flooded." Obviously if one householder raises a wall or makes some protection for her own particular property, someone else has to suffer. That is why I hope that the Minister will take some decision in this matter.
Because of recent housing development in adjoining boroughs, the surface water which formerly sank into the ground now quickly swells the small streams, with consequent damage to other local authority areas; and the county council also comes into this matter. In my own particular case, the Middlesex County Council, the Harrow Borough Council and the Wembley Borough Council are concerned, and even if one authority were disposed to compensate another authority, it is doubtful whether it would have the statutory power to do so. I would ask the Minister to clear up this matter, and to get the local authorities to speed up any negotiations.
Another of my constituents writes that he has felt very frustrated for years because of the excuses which have been

given such as: "The matter has been held up for further consideration," or "This cannot be done because of the restriction on capital expenditure," or, finally, "Because we are awaiting the decision of other boroughs." Can the Minister please speed up these proceedings, because any steps which he can take in this matter will be fully appreciated by a large number of people?

2.51 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): A few weeks ago, at a meeting of a local government association, I was asked a direct question on the subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) has raised, and I confess that I was stumped. I found myself quite ignorant of this very complicated subject of brooks and watercourses. It is a subject upon which I have since then tried to improve my education, and the decision of my hon. Friend to raise this matter today has perhaps helped.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) thought that this was not a fascinating subject. I think that it is, but it is not a straightforward issue, and I shall not be able to resolve all the complications to which both hon. Members have referred today.
May I say a word first about the general responsibilities involved, before I turn to the particular problems raised by my hon. Friend? Watercourses, rivers and streams, broadly speaking, fall under two headings. The first is rivers as drainage channels. As I think my hon. Friend appreciates, the laws of drainage go back to Tudor times or beyond. They are as old as almost any of our laws, and they are now the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture.
Under the heading of rivers as drainage channels, I would say, briefly, that there are two types of authority which have powers under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, to carry out works to maintain or improve streams as drainage channels. One is river boards, whose powers extend to main rivers only, and the other is internal drainage boards with powers over individual streams. The county councils also have certain powers, but they are not relevant to what we are now discussing.
The second heading under which we consider this subject is rivers as possible dangers to public health; that is, streams which are blocked and liable to flooding and which can then be regarded as a danger to the health of those living nearby. The Public Health Act, 1936, empowers local authorities to take action in such cases by putting them in the category of statutory nuisances.
That means that the local authority has, first, the duty of finding out who is responsible for the state of affairs and requiring him, if he can be found, to abate the nuisance. If the local authority cannot find him, or if the causes are natural, the local authority can itself, in certain circumstances, do the remedial work. It is fair to say, as both my hon. Friends have suggested, that the Land Drainage Act and the Public Health Act are limited in their application. They do not go as far as certain local authorities, on certain occasions, would wish for. In fact they go as far as Parliament intended that they should go.
I appreciate that there are circumstances, mentioned by my hon. Friend, in which the local authorities appear to fall between two stools and it may not be very easy to cover action by one Act or the other or even by a combination of both. My hon. Friend is, I think, aware that the Land Drainage Legislation Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee, the Chairman of which was Sir Arthur Heneage, recommended, among other things, that, except for farm ditches, all watercourses should be brought under the jurisdiction of either river boards or internal drainage boards. I cannot go far into that aspect now because, apart from anything else, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I do want to say something, however, on the point raised by my hon. Friend about the district auditor, and I hope I can offer some guidance which might be helpful. He raised the question how far local authorities may feel able to go in remedying statutory nuisances. There are doubts on occasions as to what a statutory nuisance may be. I accept his point that there may be doubts as to precisely what this expression covers. I think that he knows that where expenditure is incurred which the district auditor considers outside the strict terms of the

Act in any specific instance, such expenditure could be, and would be, challenged by the district auditor. In these circumstances, the authority could apply to my right hon. Friend to validate such expenditure by special dispensation under Section 228 of the Local Government Act, 1933.
It may be of help to my hon. Friend if I say that if this work has been carried out by the local authority in the bona fide belief that it is covered by the Act, we should take a sympathetic view of any such application. There is, therefore, no reason why any local authority, confronted by a task which appears to be covered by the Act, should fear that action would involve it in a surcharge by the district auditor.
I am making no offer to be generous in saying this, but we can undertake to be sympathetic. Nothing that I have said relieves the rural district council from the responsibility of examining very carefully the powers given by the Public Health Act, nor, I should stress, can there be any question of the Minister, as my hon. Friend suggested, giving instructions or guidance to the district auditor as to whether he should question any given item of expenditure. It is most important to stress the position of the district auditor, and that he is independent of the council and of the Minister. Councils can, however, always apply to the Minister, provided there is no question of recurring expenditure which may be taken as a substitute for legislation, and in that way special instances can be covered. I hope that on that point my hon. Friend may find assistance.
My hon. Friend raised in particular the local difficulty of Cosby Brook, and he gave a fair summary of what has happened there. It is fair to say that we did originally suggest to the rural district council that it should consider its powers to remedy the statutory nuisance, and if a nuisance existed the Minister would be prepared to consider sanction under Section 228 if the district auditor thought the expenditure was illegal but otherwise reasonable. That covers the contingency which I have just foreseen.
The council, no doubt for good reasons of its own, perhaps thinking that its prospects of success were not very great, asked the Trent River Board to take


responsibility for Cosby Brook and Whetstone Brook. It applied about May, 1954, and was refused about April, 1955. The ground was that neither the size nor the importance of the brooks compared with many other large rivers and brooks in the board's area. I feel that that was a fair and reasonable ground for refusing the application. It lies now with the local authorities to attempt the first course that we suggested. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the result of so doing may end this very prolonged negotiation.
To sum up, we are sympathetic towards the council's problems. It is true that this is a complicated matter and that we have tended on occasions to go round in a circle a little. I cannot speak for that part of the problem which lies within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is making a comprehensive study of land drainage law, but I have gone as far as I can in meeting what I think is, in the mind of my hon. Friend, the principal doubt and difficulty of the rural district council in considering how far it can take action for itself. I hope that this may be a contribution, if only a small one, towards resolving this undoubtedly rather complicated statutory set-up.

SMALL BUSINESSES (CREDIT RESTRICTIONS)

3.2 p.m.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I want to talk about the present financial stringency and its effect on small business. I was born in the Black Country, and I represent a Black Country constituency. We Black Country folk have been manipulating metals for centuries, and today we make everything from nuts and bolts to railway trains. The Black Country is the stronghold of the small family business. Within ten miles of Wednesbury Town Hall there are no fewer than 10,000 small manufacturing concerns, each employing fifty people or fewer.
The people running these small family concerns have always been taught to look to the banks for the money with which to modernise and expand their businesses. They know nothing of the money market. Throughout the decades they have been cajoled to look to the banks. If there

is to be a sharp cut-back of overdrafts, it will be very serious for a number of reasons, quite apart from personal and humanitarian ones.
We tend to take things for granted. Few people driving a car bother to think what was involved in putting the car on the road. Their interest is in the car's performance. However, if we are properly to understand the problems of small manufacturing concerns it is necessary to understand that most of the big motor firms today are assemblers rather than manufacturers. One large motor organisation with which I am acquainted buys for production and service more than 14,000 separate items from 6,000 suppliers.
I am this afternoon pleading the case of the small organisations which provide the stampings, forgings, castings and pressings which go into the making of motor cars. This also applies to the agricultural tractor and implement industry which, today, plays an important part in our economy, producing £110 million worth of tractors and agricultural implements yearly, of which £50 million worth are exported. If obstacles are placed in the way of these people continuing to operate in reasonable circumstances, it will be reflected throughout British industry.
I am one of those who do not believe that our social system and national economy depend on nationalised industries, I.C.I. or even Mr. Woolfson. I believe that the mainspring of our national economy and society is the individual action of private citizens such as the ones to whom I refer. As I have said, they have always been encouraged to look to the banks, and they know of nowhere else to get money.
During the last week or two they have been told to go to hire-purchase companies for the means to buy machinery which they need if they are to reduce their costs and lower selling prices, which surely is of immense importance having regard to the growing competition we are experiencing from the Americans, Germans and Japanese.
Yet the only effect of their going to hire-purchase companies is that they will pay about 17 per cent. for the money which they borrow instead of the 1 per


cent. over the Bank Rate. It does not, in any case, lessen the drain on scarce capital, because the capital has to be provided whether it is by the banks or by hire-purchase companies. In fact, hire-purchase companies obtain their funds from the banks. Consequently, such a direction brings no advantage to the national economy.
I am all in favour of making the £ an honest woman—the process is long overdue—but surely in the course of doing that we must be careful not to damage our small organisations. After all, these people are very important. I know of no better incentive than the desire to better oneself. It encourages homely virtues of thrift and frugality, determination, energy and tenancity, which I sometimes think have been slightly impaired by the Welfare State. No one should think from that observation that I am against the Welfare State; indeed, I am proud to have been one of its architects.
But, surely, in this period of financial stringency, there must be some order of priorities. Someone must decide whether the manufacturer of forgings, castings, stampings, pressings and small metal parts for export is more important than the manufacturer of ice-cream comets for sale on Clacton pier.
It is invidious that the bank manager, or, indeed, the banks, should be required to make that discrimination. The job of the bank manager is to decide who is credit-worthy and for how much; it is not his job to draw up a batting order of national priorities in a period of emergency and then allocate scarce capital on the basis of that batting order. That is not his job. Of course, the Chancellor, up to now, has not been prepared to say that there has to be discrimination about the kind of organisation that should be given first preference. He prefers to leave that to the banks. For the reasons I have given, that is quite wrong.
After all, we hope that this emergency will not last for ever and the bank manager is bound to have a high regard for his clientele after the emergency is over. It may well be that one of his clients who is making dolls' eyes for sale in a penny bazaar turns over £500,000 a year and has 100 per cent. collateral for any advance he wants. It may well be that one of these small manufacturers, one

of these small family businesses making forgings, castings and pressings, may not have such a large turnover and may not have as substantial a collateral.
I am not asking that credit should be given to people who are not credit-worthy, but at a time like this it is surely right that the Chancellor should now say to the banks that it is vital that the small concerns which are of such immense significance in our national economy should be given preference over those whose activities are not so vital to the balance of payments position. That is what I am asking shall be done.
There is some reason to think that the banks are far from satisfied with the nebulous attitude which the Chancellor has shown up to now. He cannot continue to "dodge the column." If we are in a condition of crisis—and I know that that is denied by the Government; but if we are not, what is all the hubbub about? —then it is the duty of the Chancellor to give guidance in the manner I have requested.
I want to turn for a minute from that problem, which arises with monotonous frequency every three or four years, to the cause of the crisis. We are now confronted with an old and familiar package, balance of payments problem, dollar gap, the constant drain on our gold and dollar reserves, the weakening of the £ and the eventual threat of deflation. It is, of course, that situation which has caused the Chancellor to ask that there shall be a wiser and more restricted use of scarce capital resources.
Here we are again with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Every three or four years they return, and it does not matter whether there is a Conservative Government or a Labour Government. To meet them we apply the same old headache powders: credit restriction, higher Bank Rate, and, sooner or later, control of imports and, if the situation continues to get worse, the last shot in the arm, deflation, and then off we go again.
We keep curing the symptoms, but the disease continues and it keeps coming back. The trouble arises because this country persists in living above its means. We have been doing that for ten years. I wish that the Chancellor would do something about that, instead of causing my small Black Country manufacturers to be harassed and badgered. We shall not get


out of the trouble, we shall always be in trouble, until we face that fact. We could not have kept going for the last ten years in the somewhat affluent manner in which we have lived had it not been for American generosity. It is important to recognise that. In the last ten years about £3,000 million has come from across the Atlantic in grants and loans in aid of one kind or another, that is, £300 million a year for ten years. People who say their prayers at night should always spare a sentence or two for our generous American friends.
What do the Government intend to do to cure the disease from which we are suffering, instead of tampering with the symptoms, which is all that is being done now? It may help my small Black Country manufacturers to escape the dilemma which confronts them if we begin looking at subsidies. I shall not ride my hobby horse, but these subsidies are the sacred cow of European social democracy. Nobody must do anything about them, so every year we pour out hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidies, pour them down the drain, to people who do not need them. Slumming in Mayfair—I shall need a lot of "kidding" before I believe that a man farming 3,000 fertile acres in Cambridge shire needs subsidies.
I should be interested to know how many people pay more rent for the garage in which they keep their car than for the house in which they live and bring up their family. This is egalitarianism gone mad. It is foolish, because, clearly, the more that goes to those who do not need it the less there is for those who do. I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will convey my views on this subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have been talking in these terms for some time and I fear that the campaign has suffered from the undertone of restraint in which it has been pursued.
I hope that the Chancellor will begin to look not only into the problem of small family businesses, which are of such vital importance, but that he will specifically say to the banks that the financial needs of these small concerns which manufacture for export should have first priority. We are entitled to expect that he will do that, and then he has two years before he need start electioneering again, so he might look into the fundamental

causes of these constant financial crises. It really will not do for the Economic Secretary, or the Chancellor, to say, as the Economic Secretary said on Tuesday night, that our economy is fundamentally sound.
It is not fundamentally sound. We are on the dole and we have been on the dole for the last ten years. The Chancellor should not be frightened. We British are a virtuous race. We do not mind wearing a hair shirt as long as it is accompanied by a halo. I hope that we will get the lead for which I have been asking from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government. Meanwhile, I specifically ask that there will be a direction or admonition to the banks to the end that these small people, who are not able to look after themselves as are these big £400 million capital concerns and the nationalised industries, shall have first priority in the allocation of scarce capital.

3.20 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I wish to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). Like my hon. Friend, I represent a constituency which is largely industrial, where there are large manufacturers of textile machinery and world-famous machine tools. There are also large textile works, but there are many small, ancillary and auxiliary works and factories as well, and the owners are concerned about this non-selective allocation of capital.
The trouble is that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their anxiety to woo the Liberals, have accepted in toto the laissez faire of the Liberal economy. We cannot do that in the present state of affairs. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, there is something wrong in the Chancellor applying a policy of selective allocation of capital by giving to the banks power to allow certain industries to have priority.
My hon. Friend said that a crisis has existed for ten years. In point of fact, our exports and imports have never balanced since 1903. The deficit was met by the revenue which we obtained from the invisible exports. Indeed, since 1937 even receipts from our invisible exports were in a total deficit of, I think, £128 million. So it was only by the realisation of our assets abroad or by the


sale of gold that, even up to 1938, just prior to the outbreak of war, this country was balancing its economy. It is no exaggeration to say that if there had been no war, there would have come a time when we would have had to have some form of retrenchment and control.
What we are asking for is, I think, perfectly reasonable. We cannot allow conditions regarding the allocation of capital to continue at the discretion of bank managers. To me that seems wrong. The Chancellor must step in and say that these firms whose activities are vital and essential to the economy, not only internally but externally, should be assisted. After all, if these firms are not able to modernise themselves and to expand, how on earth are we to produce more for export at competitive costs?
I hope that the Economic Secretary, when he replies, will mention that there must not be a doctrinaire approach. We must forget for a bit about setting the people free. We can have a capitalistic economy, but if it is to continue, and unless there is to be widespread unemployment, there must be some form of control. We should not reject the idea of controls because it is part of the Socialist economic philosophy. It has been proved beyond a peradvanture since the war, and we have had to have controls. Hon. Gentlemen opposite made fun of them, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite have, in their ultimate analysis, realised that it was absolutely essential that these controls should be imposed.
As one concerned with the welfare of this great land of ours, I wish to see it develop. I want us to arrive at the day when we shall be off the dole and indebted to no one; when we shall be able to do without American loans. I believe that we can pay our way. I do not wish to digress into discussing the type of exports upon which we ought to concentrate—perhaps I may be able to say something about that on another occasion—but I contend that serious consideration must be given to the plea advanced by my hon. Friend. The Treasury, which knows the industries vital to the country, should give a definite direction to the Bank of England and to the joint stock companies to see that capital is

made available for those essential industries in order that they may modernise themselves and develop. If that is done, we shall have taken a step towards the expansion of our industry which is at all times essential.

3.25 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): We have listened to two most interesting and very sincere speeches from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) and I shall endeavour to reply in the same spirit. Perhaps I shall not incur your wrath, Mr. Speaker, if I say in one sentence that I believe that one of the most important achievements of the last Parliament was Central African Federation, and I know very well the attitude taken by both the hon. Members on that subject.
I wish, first, to take up one point made by the hon. Member for Keighley about controls, because it has relevance to what I propose to say. As a candidate between 1945 and 1950—and I do not think that I was the only one—I always said that the great evil was inflation; and that if we wanted to get rid of controls, we had to get rid first of inflation, because physical controls were more or less inefficient means of getting over the difficulties created by inflation. It is precisely because we recognise—I wish to be absolutely honest about this—the degree of inflation which we have at home at the moment, that we have felt it necessary to step up the control of credit during the last few months. I entirely agree with what was said by both hon. Gentlemen about living within our means as a nation and, if there is time, I should like to say a few words about that.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that it should be the job of the Treasury to give positive direction to the banks about priorities and he referred to the position of small businesses. As regards the Treasury giving positive direction, I should like to point out first that my right hon. Friend said in his statement on Monday:
Since our principal object is to improve our balance of payments it would be undesirable to check investment leading to increased production for export."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th July 1955; Vol. 544, c. 827.]


My right hon. Friend said that explicitly in his statement, and I have no doubt that the banks will take due notice of it.
As hon. Members will realise, it is not at all easy to define precisely what constitutes investment leading to increased exports, because so many industries make indirect contributions to our export trade. I have no doubt, however, that, in operating my right hon. Friend's policy, the banks will take due note of that part of the statement. But I must add that the Chancellor's letter to the Governor of the Bank of England deliberately introduced the new policy of reducing the total demand on the country's resources by requiring the banks to reduce bank advances significantly below their present level, and it is quite deliberately being left to the banks to decide what steps they must take to make that policy effective.
We do not intend to pursue a policy of selective direction by the Treasury. I honestly think that such a policy would be impossible for us to operate. It is not simply a matter of considering what type of business the various companies engage in. There is the point, too—and I was at pains to emphasise this on Tuesday night —that what we want to do now is to encourage firms to postpone their marginal investment plans and, wherever possible, to postpone replacing their fixed assets.
The criterion which is really important at the moment is not what purpose these investment projects will ultimately serve, but whether in the existing state of the business they can at the present time be postponed. It would be impossible for the Treasury to give any precise directions in this matter, and that is why I am sure that my right hon. Friend has been right to leave it to the banks. I repeat what I said just now, that my right hon. Friend quite deliberately emphasised in his statement this point about increased production for exports, and I have no doubt that the banks will take due notice of it.
I now come to the point about small businesses. I can assure the hon. Member for Wednesbury that my right hon. Friend and the Government have the position of the small businesses very much in mind. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present during the

debates on the Budget and the Finance Bill just before the Election, but I remember the point being made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that it was quite unnecessary to give companies tax relief by means of a reduction in Income Tax, because, as a whole, companies were in a quite satisfactory liquid condition. I know that when I spoke about liquidity the other night it caused a certain amount of laughter, but it is easier to discuss this subject at half-past three in the afternoon than at eight minutes to ten, when there is a three-line Whip, and a good time is being had by all.
I remember the right hon. Member for Battersea, North making the point I have mentioned, to which I replied that, even if companies as a whole were in a satisfactory liquid condition, that did not apply to a large number of individual small companies. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Wednesbury when he points out how vital are these small companies to our economy, and not least to our exports. As he says, in many cases the large companies are concerned with assembly, and the sub-contract which is put out is of the very highest importance. I am absolutely with him there, but I cannot agree with him when he says that the Government ought, therefore, to take certain special measures to protect the smaller businesses from the full rigours of the present policy.
I believe that the Government are right to attempt to reduce internal pressure by asking the banks themselves to take what steps they regard as necessary to reduce the volume of credit. That is why my right hon. Friend said quite deliberately in his statement that it is for the banks themselves to decide what steps they must take to make this policy effective. I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman that we have looked into this matter very carefully and that, so far as the credit restrictions imposed in February are concerned, there is no evidence of any widespread hardship to small businesses. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends have any special evidence which they would like to put before me, I will, of course, consider it and will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Is that a concession and a promise?

Sir E. Boyle: Most certainly. If any hon. Gentleman has any evidence of widespread hardship to small businesses, I will of course read it with care, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend. That is a promise which I mean quite sincerely.
I have no doubt that small businesses have had their share in the general increase of credit which has taken place over the last few months, and it may well be right that some of that increase should now be reduced. As I said a few moments ago, it is the marginal credit, whether given to a small or a large trader, that must now be pruned. In the new situation the credit squeeze is likely to affect all recipients of credit but there is no reason to believe that the banks will, in fact, be harsher to small businesses than to larger businesses.
In conclusion, I wish to say a few words about the present position in view of what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I quite agree with him that ever since the war there has been a tendency for us as a nation to live beyond our means. I think he will agree that some years have been better than others. For example, 1948 and 1950 were both better years. I am bound to say that in 1950 this was partly because of a rather severe running down of our stocks before the Korean war, but that is history and I do not propose to dwell on it now.
I think it fair to say that 1953 was a very much better year, but I wish to make it perfectly plain that we are not satisfied at the moment with the state of the United Kingdom balance as a whole and that we are determined to see that the gold and dollar reserves are built up. We are deeply concerned at the present time both about the United Kingdom balance as a whole and also about the size and the trend of the gold and dollar reserves.
I think it only fair to remember that since the war there has been a number of big humps over which the British economy has had to go. The first was after 1945, when we had the job of re-equipping our basic industries and regaining our export markets. Then, in 1950, there was the Korean War, and I should be the very last to deny the enormous extra burden that our economy had to carry as a result of rearmament following that war. I can remember a

friend of mine—I think I can certainly call him that; Mr. Crosland, in the last Parliament—making a speech in which he pointed out how enormously more difficult things were going to be for the Chancellor of the day, to whichever party he might belong, as the result of the Korean War.
Again, after the General Election of 1951, the present Government decided, as, I think, quite rightly, that we must step up the number of houses built each year and the amount of our resources to be devoted to housing. That meant a considerable extra strain. Finally, during this last year, the economy has responded very well indeed to the incentives which my right hon. Friend has given in three consecutive Budgets to investment in productive industry. But there can be no doubt that the very sharp upturn in productive investment, on top of a sharply rising level of consumption for more than two years, has led us once again to live beyond our means as a nation.
As I tried to explain to the House the other night in winding-up the debate on the economic situation, we strongly believe, as a Government, that it is important for our competitive position in the world that we should have a high and rising level of investment in productive industry. But it is also clear that, as a trading nation, we cannot afford inflation, and it is no good our trying to do too much at once and trying to live beyond our means.
Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out to me that, when I said the other night that we were tending to try to do too much at once, I was in fact only echoing very similar words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at the time of the economic crisis of 1947. Credit restriction is only one part of my right hon. Friend's economic policy, but it is an important part.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) asked the other night exactly what was the theory of our credit policy and how it worked out. In the first place, by raising the Bank Rate, we increase the cost of carrying stocks of goods against borrowed money, and, therefore, a rise in the Bank Rate not only helps confidence but also helps to prune our import bill. Then, again, I


am sure that by our policy of ceasing to peg the Treasury bill rates, we have been able to grasp the credit base more firmly. I believe that the rise in Treasury bill rates over the last few months, about which I spoke on Tuesday, has had something to do with the fall in deposits.
Finally, and I want to be absolutely frank about this, we have taken on the task of grappling with bank advances, because, quite definitely, the present figure is not satisfactory. We intend to continue the orthodox monetary controls, and, at the same time, my right hon. Friend has asked the banks to make a definite reduction in their advances. We believe that this credit policy will make an important contribution towards getting inflation out of our system.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Has the Chancellor given any consideration to the constant and very rapid increase in share values and the values of businesses on the Stock Exchange? Inflation is very largely the result of an attitude of mind. It is easy money, and this 25 per cent. appreciation in the last five months is inducing people to withdraw money from building societies and have a go on the Stock Exchange.

Sir E. Boyle: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) had very much the same point in mind the other day, when he said that the rise in equity share values was not so much a cause of inflation as one of its many symptoms.
There are two more things I should like to mention in connection with the Stock Exchange, since this point has been raised. First, I think it will be agreed that the famous wage and dividend freeze introduced by Sir Stafford Cripps worked for a good deal longer in the sphere of dividends than in the sphere of wages, and I think that to some extent the recent rise in share prices is a long-term adjustment which was bound to come sooner or later. There is another point to be borne in mind, and I make it quite

seriously. It may sound a funny thing to say, but I am perfectly serious. This year is the first year when people in many parts of Europe and other areas of the world as well have become quite convinced that we are not going to have another major world war. That has had a great effect upon business confidence as well as upon share prices.

Mr. Hobson: Where we get an increase in the rate of interest on Treasury bills and an increase in the Bank Rate, that in itself is an incubus upon taxation. Would it not be better to keep the interest rate on Treasury bills low, and offset it by controls? What is the argument against that?

Sir E. Boyle: This is a technical point, which has been discussed previously in the House. I agree that the higher Treasury bill rate involves an extra burden upon the Exchequer, and also upon our overseas balance of payments, but it is not always quite such a heavy burden as hon. Members opposite think. The gross burden is a great deal bigger than the net burden, because a good deal of extra revenue reverts to the Exchequer.
I am quite sure that our policy of ceasing to peg the Treasury bill rate has enabled us to grapple more firmly with the credit base. A very able speech upon this subject was made some years ago by a former Chairman of Lloyds Bank—Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I do not always agree with him, but upon this point I think that he put up a very convincing argument.
I am sorry that I have occupied perhaps more than my fair share of the time today, but as we were in a calm atmosphere this afternoon, I was concerned to try to meet the interesting points raised by hon. Members opposite. I only wish to reassert that the present Government are determined to get inflation out of our system, and to see that we, as a nation, not only live within our means but have a surplus in our balance of payments, so that we can make investments in other parts of the world.

PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, CRAWLEY (PERSONAL CASE)

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough: It has been extremely interesting to listen to the debate which has just taken place. I was specially interested in one comment made by the Economic Secretary. He referred to the concern of the Government in cases of hardship to small businesses. My object is to deal with a case of hardship in a smaller unit than a small business, namely, a family—a hardship to which I referred in a Parliamentary Question not long ago.
I refer to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Holland, who live in a little house in my constituency. The house has the rather charming and romantic name of "The Cottage in the Woods." The history of this case is that after Mr. Holland came back from the war he and his wife were determined to find a home rather different from that which most people look for. They wanted a home far from the madding crowd, and yet Mr. Holland realised that he had to go back to his civilian occupation, which was in London.
Hon. Members can therefore understand that it took them some little time to find what they wanted. First, there was a circumference around London beyond which they could not go. Eventually they discovered this little cottage, which was at that time in a wilderness of weeds and, as its name implies, in a largish copse. This cottage is situated north-east of Crawley but it is actually in the very extreme north-eastern tip of the designated area of the Crawley new town. It is situated upon a long road running north and south between Horley in the north and Balcombe in the south.
They bought the house in July, 1949, and I should say here that at that time it was not in my constituency. It was in East Sussex and it came under the Cuckfield Rural District Council. When they were in process of buying the house their attention was drawn to the fact that it was within the designated area of the Crawley Development Corporation and, as everybody knows, if one comes within the ambit of a new town and at the same time one wants to be far from the madding crowd, one should take a certain amount of precaution.
Mr. and Mrs. Holland, therefore, visited the offices of the Crawley Development Corporation in July, 1949, before they actually bought this property, and they were assured that it was in a green belt area, and that it was a very small area just to the west of a large green belt area which exists outside the designated area. They were shown a map in the offices, and this small space was painted green.
They were also concerned at that time about a planned radial road to the east of their small property, and they therefore paid a visit to the Cuckfield Rural District Council, from whom they also received an assurance that this was, in fact, in an area which was to be retained as green belt. Not only was it not going to be built on, but the long-term policy was that as houses got into a state of dilapidation they were to be pulled down so that this would constitute a completely green belt area.
Mr. and Mrs. Holland bought the house, and in a matter of two years they had converted it from the wilderness to which I referred into a house which has received a very great deal of prominence because of the beauty of its garden. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that photographs of this garden have appeared in periodicals and magazines in countries all over the world, and visitors have come to see it. This Mr. and Mrs. Holland achieved in a matter of a very few years.
In 1951, two years after they bought the house, they thought that further to secure themselves they might be able to buy a small strip of land to the south of their boundary, 60 ft. in depth and entirely woodland. They approached their neighbour on that side and he informed them that they would have to pay a development charge. I will say straight away that they did not know very much about development charges, and in that respect I think they were probably on common ground with many hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens. But they were rather worried about it because of the word "development" and they had at the back of their minds that this place was in a green belt.
They telephoned to the Crawley Development Corporation and they were again informed that this area was in a green belt and would not be built upon.


Again they were reassured and were perfectly happy for another three years. In 1954 their neighbour on the northern boundary informed them that he was selling quite a large amount of land for building purposes. They immediately told him of the assurances that they had had, not once but time and again, that this was in a green belt area and, therefore, was not for development.
They were very concerned about it because he told them that that had all been changed, so they telephoned Crawley Development Corporation and this time the response was different. They were not reassured at all. They were told somewhat abruptly, so they tell me, that it was no longer a matter which had anything to do with the corporation and that they must get in touch with the rural district council.
I should say here that in the intervening period this area had come within my constituency. It had been transferred from East Sussex to West Sussex. Therefore, the appropriate local council was the Horsham Rural District Council, to whom Mr. and Mrs. Holland immediately wrote in February, 1954, objecting strongly to the fact that they had not been notified of this planning change. They received a reply to the effect that there had been no applications received up to date for development and that, therefore, the council felt that they had no worries.
Three weeks later the Horsham Rural District Council received an application from a Mr. Brooker to purchase, and to build a house on, a property a bare 100 ft. north of their own small cottage. Mr. and Mrs. Holland were never informed of this. The first they heard of it was in the October—several months later. Directly they did hear, on 15th October, they wrote to the rural district council, but the reply was that there was no onus on the local council to notify them that planning permission had been granted and there was nothing further they could do about it.
The Hollands accepted this situation with more or less resignation but it at least served to keep them alive to any further developments. Being on the qui vive they discovered, on 20th October, that another application had been lodged, this time for the plot of land between that of Mr. Brooker and their own. They immediately wrote

again in protest, and it was on the strength of that letter, so I am informed, that Mr. Dudman's application for the new piece of land was turned down. I should like to make clear that the refusal was on the grounds of loss of amenity to Mr. and Mrs. Holland and not on planning grounds. I understand that that application was turned down by the local council on 24th November, 1954.
Mr. and Mrs. Holland realised that Mr. Dudman would no doubt appeal against the decision. Therefore, when they were approached a few days later by the local Press for information, they said that the matter was sub judice and that they would prefer to make no comment whatever. Unhappily—and unfortunately—no such restraint was exercised by a very senior official of the Crawley Development Corporation who at that time made a statement to the Press which, I believe, read as follows: "They never would have been assured this." He referred, of course, to the original assurance given by the Crawley Development Corporation to Mr. Holland that the cottage was in a green belt.
I submit that that statement by an official of the Crawley Development Corporation seriously embarrassed Mr. and Mrs. Holland's position in the appeal. However, the point which I wish to make to my hon. Friend is that which I pressed in a supplementary question—that the Hollands did not receive even adequate notice of the appeal which was later heard. Here I must confess that I quite unwittingly somewhat misled the House in my supplementary question. I should like now to put that right. I apologise for the rather large number of dates but they are important.
Mr. Holland has been informed by the Ministry that he would be given adequate notice of the appeal. On 1st February —when he saw this statement in the Press made by the official of the development corporation—he wrote asking the Ministry whether an appeal had been lodged and, if it had been, when it would be heard. In view of this Press statement, he also asked that the evidence should be taken on oath and that he should be allowed to subpoena witnesses. On 1st February—and this is where I misled the House—the local rural district council wrote Mr. Holland a formal letter stating that the appeal would be heard on 10th


February. He received that letter on the evening of 2nd February.
For two reasons—first, that he was awaiting confirmation from the Ministry in reply to his letter of 1st February; and second—and I do not quote this as an excuse—that he was in bed with influenza with a temperature of 103 degrees, he did nothing about this until getting confirmation from the Ministry. He did not receive that until he got a telegram dated 8th February. I ask my hon. Friend this. If the Ministry—as it did—notified the rural district council on 27th January that this appeal was to be heard on 10th February, why did it take the Ministry from 2nd February to 8th February to notify Mr. Holland? I think that Mr. Holland has perfect grounds for saying that he could not do very much until he had a reply from the Ministry. The biggest point is that he never received, until 15th July, a reply from the Ministry to his question whether the evidence could be taken on oath and that he should be able to subpoena witnesses.
The result of all this was that when the appeal was heard on 10th February Mr. Holland was not represented legally nor, in my submission, had he a reasonable time in which to make his case. It is on those grounds that I ask my hon. Friend once again to look into this matter —this chapter of what I call hardships and the statements made from time to time to my constituent—and to ask himself whether that appeal was not, as I described it in my supplementary question, almost a travesty of justice?
I have three reasons for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The first, and by far the most important, is that in view of all the statements which have been made and of the fact that my constituent did not have reasonable time, in my submission, to get legal representation at the appeal, his name has been impugned. People are saying that Mr. and Mrs. Holland have been making up the story that it is unreasonable that they should have been told time and again that they were in a green belt. Therefore, my principal reason for raising the matter is to clear their name. I hope that will be done.
There are one or two other questions which I want to put to my hon. Friend. The first, which is a matter which affects

very much my constituency, is whether the Minister, before he made his decision as a result of this appeal, consulted the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation? I really cannot understand how the Minister can allow what is nothing more nor less than ribbon development on this road, which will be of vital importance at the time when Gatwick Aerodrome is being developed, and in view of the fact that the whole of the traffic to Brighton will be seriously impeded for several years. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would say whether full consideration was given to that aspect of the matter?
Finally, I ask my hon. Friend whether he can give any sort of assurance in regard to the southern boundary of Mr. and Mrs. Holland's small property. I saw, in a brochure issued by one of the companies which has a factory in Crawley, that it is intended to have a certain number of better-class houses built, some of which will have two or three acres of land each.
I am asked by Mr. and Mrs. Holland particularly to say that they do not wish that it should in any way be thought that they want their amenities to be considered before housing in Crawley. Nevertheless, this is a most lovely beauty spot. It is a place where, if we are not careful, there will be ribbon development and most serious traffic congestion. In all the circumstances, I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance, either that there will be no further development or that it will be restricted to these better-class houses.

3.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I very much welcome the chance—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I take it that the hon. Member is speaking with the leave of the House?

Mr. Deedes: I beg pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. By leave of the House, I wish to say something about this case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough). It is a case in which allegations of gross injustice have been made and the expressions "travesty of justice" and "shameful treatment" have been very freely used. I always think that in such circumstances the best thing is to have it all out in the


open, and this debate which my hon. Friend has initiated provides an opportunity for doing so. To that extent I am genuinely grateful to him. I should like first to outline the initial facts, as my hon. Friend has done—I am not much at variance with him—as we have them. Mr. Holland, whose motives described by my hon. Friend I fully appreciate, acquired a cottage at Worth, Sussex, just within the designated area of Crawley new town in 1949. He paid £3,000 for it and has since spent, I think, about £1,000 in improving it. My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that Mr. Holland has a remarkable garden which has today become a showpiece. That is quite beyond dispute.
The heart of Mr. Holland's case is that he says that before buying the house he inquired of the Crawley Development Corporation and the Cuckfield Rural District Council, which was then responsible for planning applications, and he obtained assurances that the land was green belt and that no further houses would be allowed. I have my own note of the conversation as it was recorded at the time by the Crawley Development Corporation. This is my note:
I informed them that the property was in the open space which it was proposed to use as the buffer land around the developed part of the town and that the house would probably not be interfered with during its normal physical life.
I shall have something more to say about that presently.
As my hon. Friend said, certain conversations and correspondence followed, but the next act of substance was five years later, when a Mr. Dudman applied to build a house next door on the north side of Mr. Holland's house. The Crawley Development Corporation was consulted and offered no objection. Mr. Holland, as my hon. Friend said, heard of the application and, quite naturally, took immediate action, including strong representations to the Horsham Rural District Council, which by then had become responsible for considering planning applications.
It is noteworthy that the Horsham Rural District Council took the view that there was no planning objection to Mr. Dudman's application. However, it refused the application these terms:

The proposal would be likely adversely to affect the amenities of the adjoining property.
That was done solely in order that there should be a public inquiry at which Mr. Holland could register his objection. When references are made to "shameful treatment," and so on, that is a point which I am entitled to stress. Clearly, the rural district council was anxious that justice, as far as an inquiry could do justice, should be done to the case of Mr. Holland.

Mr. Gough: I did not for one moment suggest anything else. I know that the rural district council and several councillors have taken up the case on behalf of Mr. Holland.

Mr. Deedes: I am glad we are agreed on that.
The inquiry was held on 10th February, 1955. I am glad that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to put right the question of the notice. It is a fact that there was a difference in the notice which Mr. Holland received from one source and that from the Ministry, but what matters is that Mr. Holland was given the date of the inquiry eight days before it was held; and I think he had anticipated some time beforehand that there would be an inquiry. He has since said that he had no time to instruct a solicitor and to prepare his case as he would have wished. If so, that certainly is regrettable, but there was eight days' notice and he had, I think, some anticipation of the inquiry which was to take place and had, no doubt, to some extent got his affairs in readiness for such an inquiry.
My hon. Friend referred to a statement made by the Crawley Development Corporation while the matter might have been considered to be sub judice. I cannot comment on that, as I have no notice of it, but I can say that no such statement made by the Crawley Development Corporation could conceivably have weighed with the inspector at the inquiry. That is what matters. As a result of the inquiry on 15th April, a decision was issued allowing Mr. Dudman's appeal, subject to the site, design and external appearance of the building being agreed with the local planning authority.
Having given a fairly straightforward account of the facts, I should like to


make same comments on the situation. Mr. Holland is clearly under the impression that when he first asked in 1949 he got a categorical assurance that no development could take place. It is perfectly true that all these transactions were verbal, and I do not dispute for a moment with my hon. Friend that on this occasion, as on all such occasions, it is one man's word against another's as to exactly what transpired.
However, there are two points which, I think, it is fair to make. First, Mr. Holland says that similar undertakings were given to Mr. Johnstone, who has a house nearby. In correspondence with Mr. Johnstone in 1949 the corporation explained that the master plan was only a framework and that is showed that the area concerned was in a green strip. We come here to what, I think, may clear up a major misapprehension in this case. My hon. Friend said that this small space was painted green. That is absolutely right. It was shown as a green strip in the coloured version of the master plan—a light green colour. The correspondence included a statement that until the detailed drawings were prepared it could not be said with certainty to what extent a particular property would be affected by development. I think that between the green strip and the green belt there may have been misunderstanding. There is no question of this land being in the green belt.
The second point is this. Mr. Holland's case is based on a misconception, for which he cannot be blamed, because these are not simple matters, as to how planning control is exercised. No one can ever give a categorical assurance about the fate of future planning applications. That is quite clear. If anyone could, any appeal to my right hon. Friend would become quite meaningless. It would be worth nothing. Development plans and master plans in new towns lay down the general policy of land use in an area, but can never be or seek to be conclusive in relation to particular proposals.

Mr. Gough: What rather defeats me is this, that my hon. Friend agrees with me that the local authority refused permission on amenity grounds, not on planning grounds at all, but then he tells me that when the appeal was heard the

appeal was upheld on planning grounds. Therefore, the amenity question appears to me not to have been dealt with.

Mr. Deedes: The local authority, having in the main no objection in principle, refused in order to give an opportunity for an inquiry, so that justice could be done to my hon. Friend's client. Therefore, I do not think much stress can be placed on that.

Mr. Gough: Not client but constituent.

Mr. Deedes: Constituent, I should have said.
The second point I want to stress is this. To define land as green belt—which is not the case here—raises a strong presumption against development, but it does not preclude development between existing houses. That often is allowed even in the green belt. So that even if this land in question had been within the green belt, still no categorical assurance could have been given in 1949 that nothing could ever be built between one house and another.
The third thing I would stress is that had the appeal been dismissed, Mr. Dud-man himself might have had a very strong grievance. To have denied him the right to build would in itself have been certainly an act of gross injustice.
For Mr. Holland in his cares and anxieties during the recent years I have great sympathy. I think it is rather tragic that when, as my hon. Friend put it, he sought to be far from the madding crowd he should have been so deeply exercised and involved in so much correspondence in safeguarding his property. It is rather tragic. However, I do not think he should be too gloomy about the future. He has still a charming and secluded garden, of which he is rightly proud. His new neighbour made clear at the inquiry that he would respect the desire for seclusion, and he proposed to leave that belt of trees 45 ft. wide between the two gardens. I think that most of us in this tightly packed island would be very glad of as much as that.
I come lastly to the two questions which my hon. Friend raised about transport and about the southern boundary. I am not going to attempt to answer either offhand. I have had no notice of either and I am most anxious that any


answer given should have been carefully studied in some detail. I will, therefore, seek out any answer which my hon. Friend requires on the two points and write to him and give as full particulars as I can.

NATIONAL SERVICE (AIRCRAFTMAN THAINE)

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: We know that this is the last debate before the long Summer Recess and, in case I forget to do so at the end of my speech, I wish you now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and also Mr. Speaker and officials of the House a very happy holiday. That goes, too, for the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I hope that he will believe that I am sincere despite what I intend to say. I shall still mean it whatever the hon. Gentleman says in reply to my speech.
Before I get to the case of Aircraftman Thaine, which I wish to raise today, I should like to make some brief comment about another and relevant case. I am sorry that we are having this long Summer Recess, because I have many cases that I want to raise about what I submit are too many blunders in the treatment of National Service men. I can only say that, probably refreshed after the summer holiday, I propose to return and to do my best with these cases when Parliament reassembles.
There is a case of two very well-known jockeys who are twins and who were considered for National Service. They were called to a medical examination several months ago. One of the twins was rejected on the ground that he was under weight. The other was accepted. Two months ago the one who was accepted was called up for service. He was accepted despite the fact that the brother who was rejected said that he—that is the one who was rejected—was much fitter. The one who was accepted had had a very bad fall from a horse at Ascot and in consequence has the permanent disability of one shoulder being two inches lower than the other. He was called up two months ago and did nothing but sweep floors until two days ago, when he was discharged.
It is fantastic when it is recalled that the reason for rejecting the fitter twin was

that he was under weight whereas at that time the one who was accepted was much lighter in weight, and still is today. The rejected brother weighs seven stone and the one who was accepted weighs well below seven stone. I hope that when we return after the Summer Recess I shall be able to take up that case and indicate that here is an injustice and something wrong with the call-up and that there has been a waste of public money.
I should like to deal with the case of Aircraftman Thaine from two aspects, the first educational and the second physical. Before registration, this man was studying for a course in electrical engineering and in due time he hoped to sit the City and Guilds examinations. I have a written, signed statement from his father that when the son was due for registration the father made contact with the Air Ministry and was informed that if he were called up, every opportunity would be given to this young man to follow his studies. Because of that assurance, the question of applying for deferment on the advice of the father was rejected by the son and he did not send forward his application. There is evidence to indicate that this was so, because after the young man was called up he went to the R.A.F. camp at Melksham in Wiltshire and, through fees paid by the Royal Air Force, he attended for some time at the Bath Technical School.
He completed three years' study in May of this year when he should have sat his first examination, with the second stage in June, but in March he was informed that he was to be considered as on embarkation leave and ultimately he was sent away to Iraq. He arrived in Iraq on 30th April, a matter of days before he was due to sit for his examination.
On this news becoming available, his father made every representation that was possible so that he should have the opportunity to continue in that sphere with his education. I can appreciate the point that the Air Force cannot be wrong purely on the basis of seeing men get the opportunity to pursue educational studies, but it seems that in many cases this is done. I have a letter here from the father, and I quote from what he wrote to the officer commanding at Melksham:
With reference to that part of your letter which states that if consideration is given to individuals on educational grounds there would


not be sufficient Service men to fulfil overseas duties, I would reply that it is a fact that certain men taking the same course and wishing to go on overseas have had home postings.
The father is prepared to give the Service details of those men to substantiate that point.
What makes it particularly difficult to appreciate is the policy that is being followed in these very unsettled matters. As the father writes:
On Saturday, April 16th "—
within a few days of all this happening—
in an interview with Max Robertson on television, Mr. Billy Knight
there is no use keeping it quiet; thousands know of it—
the well-known junior tennis player, was asked how he managed to play tennis whilst serving in the R.A.F.: he replied that he was conveniently posted near London and was able to get off at 3 p.m. each day and weekends in order to practise and play. Asked how the R.A.F. would react should he be chosen for the Davis Cup Team, he again replied that he thought he would get time off to play.
The father rightly asks, as many people are asking:
I should like to know on what grounds one man is conveniently posted and facilities granted that he may pursue that pastime when my son's application and my personal appeal on educational grounds are rejected.
I should like the Minister to give some sort of explanation which will help this father and others to understand how it is that there is this difference of treatment. Is not it a fact that the problems that this country has to settle, which are largely on the economic side, are such that in peace-time every consideration should be given to the question of those who want to fit themselves to play a big part in the future activities of this country and in its efforts to live?
That is only a sideline from my main point. It is not as if this young man was fit enough to go into the Service at all. I believe that if he had received the care and attention which a well-known cricketer has had, he would not have been in the Forces and would have been able to continue his educational pursuits.
I agree that the condition of this young man worsened, by virtue of an accident, between the time he had his medical examination under the Ministry of Labour and the time he was called up for the Royal Air Force. As we know

by the case of the cricketer, the period between a medical examination and call-up may be a few days or even a month or two or even three. This man has been in the Forces for 11 months and, if the Minister does not admit it now, time will show that he should not have been in the Royal Air Force at all, especially when we know what has happened in other cases.
Before giving briefly the physical history of this man, I want to quote an extract from a letter written by his father on 10th July to the Officer in Charge of Special Enquiries, Royal Air Force, Adastral House, London:
I have now had an opportunity of seeing my son since his return from Iraq, and I am appalled at his physical condition with regard to his feet and limp. I would point out that in my opinion his present condition is due to neglect on the part of the Royal Air Force in so much as they have failed to administer medical treatment at the time it was necessary.
Now for a brief history of the matter from the time of the man's first accident. On 25th October, 1953, this young man fractured his right leg in two places. In January, 1954, he had his first medical examination and was deferred for three months. In April, 1954, he had his second medical examination and was deferred for two months. In June, 1954, he had a third medical examination and was passed A.1, although he pointed out that he suffered from a limp.
In the meantime, between this last medical examination and being passed A.1 and being called up for the Royal Air Force, on 18th July, 1954, he crushed his foot in an accident, and two toes were broken. On 16th August, a month later, he enlisted at Cardington. On 24th August, eight days later, he reported sick with foot and toe. Then on 18th April, 1955, he reported sick with foot and toe, plus sprained ankle. On 26th April, 1955, he reported sick again with foot and toe. On 30th April he arrived in Iraq. In May, whilst in Iraq, he reported sick seven times. On 26th May he was seen by a specialist and on the following day he was admitted to hospital. On 21st June he left Iraq in a hospital 'plane for England and on 22nd June he was admitted to the hospital in Swindon.
I have not the time to give a report of the sufferings of this young man while in the Forces. For instance, he got into trouble for not placing his left foot on


the ground while in the front support position on the parade ground. He complained that it was too painful. Having been in the Forces, I can appreciate that some people to whom complaints are made do not express the utmost sympathy. From the signed report I have, I understand that he got into a state of mind where, when he was pulled up for limping on the parade ground, he was told that he would be reported or put on a charge if he did not report sick.
I could give a lot of other evidence to indicate that there seemed to be little sympathy given to this young man and, when the case comes to a conclusion, I do not think it will be found that he was making excuses without reason.
What concerns me is the attitude of the Minister, and that is one of the reasons for raising this today. I put a Question on the Order Paper in June, asking about this case. Either by coincidence or not, it seems that some special attention was given to this young man in Iraq. As a consequence—and this may be a coincidence—it was decided to bring him back to England.
I put a second Question to the Minister, asking what had happened, and pointing out this man's trouble with his feet. By the way, he has a stiff joint in one of his toes. This seemed to be the cause for a well-known cricketer getting out. He has this foot trouble, and many other things; and when the Minister replied to me he got a good deal of fun in doing so. He said that the trouble was not this man's feet, that he had only a slight disability, and that he was suffering from dyspepsia. If that is so, it is rather remarkable that a specialist should have looked at his feet before he got on the plane at Iraq. He went on to say that the specialist saw nothing wrong with his feet or that there was only very slight disability.
We come to the point when the young man went to the R.A.F. hospital at Swindon. It appears, from the information which I have, that the question of dyspepsia, or fear that he had an ulcer, did not materialise. What is more important and alarming to me is that, according to his father, he was examined by a bone specialist. His feet and legs were examined with the following results: one, an operation is recommended on his big toe; one leg is three-

quarters of an inch shorter than the other, and, unless he has his boots built up, his back will be affected from uneven weight on his feet.
If the Minister says that is incorrect, I shall have to start all over again, but if what I say is correct, and I have every reason to believe that it is, this is the cause of the limp. Who can doubt it? This young man has had two accidents. His right leg has been fractured in two places, and he has had the trouble of two crushed toes and a crushed foot. I submit that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that, if certain people can get out to carry on with sport, this man should not be in the Services at all.
Therefore, I raise this subject on the Adjournment, because I believe, as a result of the trouble I have taken, and on the testimony and evidence I have got, first, that there is a complaint in connection with the question of educational facilities when compared with others, particularly those engaged in sport, and, secondly, that, on the evidence, this man, who was taken into the Service as grade I, has suffered unduly while in the Forces. He will never be any good at all to the Service. It will cost an awful lot of money and inevitably, in my submission, he will have to be discharged. I hope that some information will be given this afternoon and that, even if justice has been delayed, it will prevail at long last.

4.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) for his kind wishes to me for an enjoyable holiday, which I thoroughly reciprocate. He will not expect me this afternoon to go into the question of the two jockeys.

Mr. Dodds: No.

Mr. Ward: I have no idea who they are, and he did not say the Service to which one of them went, or give any information about him. No doubt the hon. Member will pursue that point after the Recess.
I am glad to have the opportunity of giving the House all the facts that I can about the case of aircraftman Thaine. I shall, in the process, have to disclose a good deal of personal information about this man, and I am naturally sorry to


have to make this information public. As the matter has been made one of public interest, I have no choice.

Mr. Dodds: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point that the father knows all that and so does the airman and that they have asked me to go ahead. That is why I am doing so.

Mr. Ward: Some of the details in the early part of the story have been given by the hon. Gentleman, and I do not differ very materially from him on either the facts or the dates, but, just to keep the story a consecutive one, perhaps he will forgive me if I start at the beginning, as he did.
It is true that the aircraftman injured his leg in a motor cycle accident in 1953 before his National Service. It is also true that in June, 1954, he was examined by the Ministry of Labour and National Service Medical Board and passed Grade I. I have no knowledge, because I am not at the Ministry of Labour and National Service, whether that was the first, second or third medical board that he had, but the fact remains that in June, 1954, he was passed Grade I by the medical board. Very shortly after that he had a further accident, injuring two toes. Therefore, when he joined the Royal Air Force at Cardington on 16th August, he was, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, not in exactly the same physical condition as he had been when he had his medical board.
The aircraftman went to West Kirby on 23rd August for recruit training. The day after he got there he consulted the medical officer about his foot trouble, with the result that he was excused physical training; but he was excused only physical training. The medical officer kept an eye on his progress and saw him on three occasions and examined him. As a result of that, the aircraft-man was judged to be quite fit to carry out combat training and marching, which he did without complaint.
He was posted to Melksham on 27th October for a five-months' trade course consisting mainly of classroom work. He was given a routine examination at Melksham on 7th December and was assessed as fit for service in any part of the world. In March, 1955, he became due for overseas posting, and as a matter of course was medically examined and

again found quite fit. He then went on embarkation leave until 18th April, and on that day he reported sick for the first time in nearly six months, complaining—

Mr. Dodds: For five of those six months the man had been doing work which did not call for any great physical standard.

Mr. Ward: That is very likely.

Mr. Dodds: I just want to get the gap of six months covered.

Mr. Ward: What I am saying is that here is a man who is supposed to be a physical wreck, and yet he had not reported sick for nearly six months. He was complaining at that time of foot trouble and a sprained ankle, and his medical documents show that his ankle was strapped up. He was examined again before he went to Innsworth on 20th April. He reported sick again at Inns-worth. He was given treatment, and exercises were recommended, and he attended the physiotherapy department at Innsworth.
Then he went to Iraq, arriving there on 30th April. His documents show that he was seen by the medical officer on 9th, 11th and 12th May. On 9th May he complained of a colicky abdominal pain. He was examined, but no abnormality was noted.

Mr. Dodds: Let us get this into the right perspective. Is it not a fact that a sergeant in charge of manning and disciplinary control saw him walking on the camp and instructed him to report, and that he did report with pains in the head, feet, stomach and legs?

Mr. Ward: I do not know what the sergeant said.

Mr. Dodds: He did not know himself.

Mr. Ward: The facts as I know them are that he reported sick with abdominal pains. He did not say anything about his feet. There was an examination and no abnormality was found, but he was given appropriate medical treatment for two days.
On 11th May, two days later, he complained of weakness in the heat and pains in the feet. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford is probably confusing the two dates. At that time he


also complained of abdominal discomfort after meals and slight dizziness. He was given a sedative and medical treatment, and three consecutive stool examinations were recommended by the medical officer. On 12th May he again reported sick and was admitted for observation and investigation of his abdominal complaint. Again, after careful examination, no physical abnormality was found, except constipation, and he was discharged on 20th May and put on a diet for a trial period of one week. During that week he was seen by the medical officer on three days and after that was given a full examination by the medical specialist. The only positive signs were extreme depression and bad breath.
The specialist advised admission to hospital and Thaine was admitted the next day, 27th May. On 9th June the medical specialist reported that Thaine was in a constant state of depression. He was given another very thorough medical examination, including blood tests, X-ray of the chest and lumbar puncture, all of which were negative, and the stomach and intestines were also X-rayed. The medical specialist could find no medical symptoms to account for Thaine's incapacity and he attributed it to the patient's anxiety about himself.
In these circumstances it was decided to send him back to the United Kingdom, where he arrived by air on 23rd June and was admitted to the R.A.F. hospital at Wroughton. There he was thoroughly examined yet again, and again no evidence of organic disease was found. The specialist reported on 28th June that Thaine had functional dyspepsia—and the hon. Member will know that that is dyspepsia caused by anxiety—and that he was now relatively free from symptoms and fit to return to duty in temperate climates.
While Thaine was in hospital at Wroughton, he was examined by the orthopaedic specialist on 26th June and by the principal specialist in orthopaedic surgery on 28th June. I want to make it clear that he did not go into hospital for any reason except his abdominal troubles, but as he was there, and as the matter had been raised, it was not unnatural to ask the orthopaedic specialist to have a look at him. Both surgeons recommended a raising of the sole and the heel of his right shoe.

Mr. Dodds: Was it found that one leg was three-quarters of an inch shorter than the other?

Mr. Ward: The principal specialist advised that a period of treatment at a rehabilitation unit should be tried. It is perfectly true that one leg is a little shorter than the other. I think that three-quarters of an inch is right.

Mr. Dodds: Will the Under-Secretary answer the question about the man's toes? We want to get it sorted out.

Mr. Ward: I want to make my own speech in my own way. If the hon. Gentleman will stop interrupting me, I will get on with it.
Thaine was accordingly sent to the Medical Rehabilitation Unit at Collaton Cross on 1st July. He has been undergoing treatment in the postures class there, doing special foot and leg exercises and having physiotherapy. He will be reviewed again during the next few days. He was measured for special shoe fitments as prescribed by the orthopaedic surgeons. These were ordered on 15th July and Thaine was wearing them by 22nd July. I understand that Thaine has expressed the view that he thinks they will be all right once he gets used to them.
I have given the House a lot of detail because I wish hon. Members to know the medical attention that this airman has had, and how his early return to this country did not arise from any foot or leg trouble. The specialists in Iraq and the United Kingdom concluded quite independently that he was suffering from a mild dyspepsia of nervous origin. I have every hope that when Thaine leaves Collaton Cross he will feel happy about himself. His qualifications make him a valuable member of the Royal Air Force and I trust that his health will not let him down again. Before I go on to the next part of my speech I am prepared to give way to allow the hon. Member to ask a question.

Mr. Dodds: I appreciate that. As I have established, and the Minister has admitted, that one of Thaine's legs is three-quarters of an inch shorter than the other, will the Minister now deal with the point that Thaine has a stiff joint in the big toe for which an operation has been suggested? Is not this exactly the


same complaint for which a well-known cricketer was discharged because if he had continued in the Service it would probably have meant that his foot would deteriorate, and the Ministry would have had to pay a pension?

Mr. Ward: I should like to deal with that a little later when I come to the general principles which actuate us in deciding whether or not to keep a man. I think—

Mr. Dodds: I was only asking about Thaine.

Mr. Ward: I will cover that point when I come to it.
I wish to point out next that this airman's affairs have been brought to my notice by the Member representing the constituency in which his father lives, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who is Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. That was early in June, 1955, at the same time as the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford put down his first Question. As the House will remember from what I said earlier, most of the airman's troubles with his health had then already occurred. However, the airman's father's letter to his Member at that time was about the fact that his son's posting to Iraq interfered with his studies for his civilian career. That is the point which the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford first raised today.
In these communications with my hon. Friend no mention was made of any dissatisfaction with the Royal Air Force medical treatment. Indeed, Mr. Thaine said at that time that he had no objection to National Service; in fact, he considered it to be good for any lad, although he qualified this with a reservation about interruption of studies. Moreover, in none of the five letters which Mr. Thaine sent to various Royal Air Force officers between March, 1954, and June, 1955, did he make the slightest complaint about medical treatment. I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that although Mr. Thaine's original complaints were very real and his original anxiety was very real about his son's education, the later complaints about the airman's fitness for service and his medical treatment are something in the nature of afterthoughts.

Mr. Dodds: After Cowdrey got out, and quite right.

Mr. Ward: Well, let us get that straight. There was no complaint about the medical treatment he was receiving in the Air Force; no complaint at all about having to do his National Service. In fact his father approved of it.

Mr. Dodds: Until Cowdrey came out.

Mr. Ward: That is important.
Returning to Mr. Thaine's actual representations to his Member, I am glad to say that as a result of my hon. Friend's representations we have been able to make arrangements which should screen from overseas postings the majority of those National Service men whose studies for recognised professional and technical examinations can only be continued by part-time attendance at a recognised school in the United Kingdom. I hope that will avoid the anxieties of other fathers in the future.
May I end by explaining briefly, because it is important to do so, the principles which guide Royal Air Force doctors in deciding whether an airman who may be a borderline case—and each case is examined on its merits—is fit to complete his period of National Service? They ask themselves three main questions. The first is whether the airman's condition is likely to be aggravated to a material degree by further service. That was the question which in Cowdrey's case produced a categorical "Yes" from a very eminent civilian orthopaedic specialist as well as from a Service man. There was no doubt that his condition was likely to be aggravated. Therefore, it was only fair to him and to the Service to release him. That does not apply in the case of Thaine.
The second question which the doctors ask themselves is whether a chance exists that an airman will become physically unfit for any form of Royal Air Force service. Once again, that applied to Cowdrey. It was the advice of the finest medical sources that we could find that undoubtedly Cowdrey's condition would become such that he would be physically unfit for any form of Royal Air Force service.
The third question is whether the condition of the airman is likely to need frequent treatment and to result in excessive loss of his usefulness to the Royal


Air Force. All these questions are put by the doctors to themselves in the case of every National Service airman whom they consider to be a borderline case. They were certainly put in the case of Thaine.
It may well be that, as a result of further care and treatment, the third question—that is to say, whether his condition is likely to need frequent treatment and to result in excessive loss of his usefulness to the Royal Air Force—is the only one of these three questions which could possibly apply to this airman.
Very serious allegations have been made in this case, and I have naturally

made the closest and most conscientious inquiries into them, both in fairness to the airman and to the hon. Member, and, incidentally, in fairness to the Royal Air Force. I am entirely satisfied that there has been no lack of medical care, no injustice, and, generally, no foundation for any anxiety about this particular case or about the care which National Service men generally receive in the Royal Air Force.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned according at ten minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday, 25th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.